• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    The bankruptcy risk does not exist for the federal government. So a government funded non-profit development project that’s built by the same construction company (charging the same money) that a for-profit investor would hire, would save that 12-20% for that project straight up.

    Yes for single family homes the calculus you describe makes sense.

    But we aren’t building ourselves out of this shit show with single family homes. I think most recognize that given the push for rezoning. So in my mind, looking at multistorey buildings is the only interesting scenario. And I think my argument that there’s savings in the elimination of the profit and the “luxury” factors is reasonable.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      It wouldn’t save 12-20%, in a situation where the development “fails” it just means that the costs far exceed the revenue and it becomes a tax burden on the public. Just because no bankruptcy is declared doesn’t mean there aren’t negative consequences for stakeholders.