Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

The_CerealDefense t1_iz76d80 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Influential NYC comedy club Caroline's closing after 40 years by broadcastterp

I'm confused why the US govt allows a foreign nation to own significant real estate in the US, not a foreign national, an actual nation. Outside of diplomatic or residence type places etc. of course

75

captainktainer t1_iz79tl1 wrote

Because when other countries own property in the United States, it gives us leverage over them and encourages them to feel generally positive about our welfare. It's related to why Alexander Hamilton wanted the new federal government to assume state debts and issue US bonds to anyone who would buy them. People with whom you have ongoing economic ties, especially involving property, will tend to support your welfare so as to avoid endangering their investment. There are downsides to that arrangement, but it's a powerful tool in maintaining the United States' preeminence in international affairs and encouraging other nations not to put our peace and stability in too much danger.

92

Duchock t1_iz7fx5t wrote

Absolutely this. International Relations 101.

Edit: yes, it sucks sometimes that the consequences are often at the determent of locals, but it's a tradeoff. This particular example is not even a drop in the bucket for local impact, but something like housing owned as investment properties or tax shelters by foreigners which has no chance of serving the purpose of being housing is a bigger one.

19

hotel_air_freshener t1_iz7ozv6 wrote

Yeah it just sucks that when I look at these gleaming safe deposit box towers, destroying yet another cultural institution, the lights are never on at night. They should be taxed if vacant/unused.

16

Isawthebeets t1_iz7u5mp wrote

Would you rather it midtown instead of say in Brooklyn or Queens?

−2

hotel_air_freshener t1_iz8hhuw wrote

I’d rather it be taxed or more affordability priced for residents of NY regardless of what borough it’s in.

8

threerocks3rox t1_iz95hns wrote

if Saudi investments keeps our risk of nuclear annihilation lower, I’ll deal with two Starbucks on every corner. I’m still going to bitch about it though.

5

Luke90210 t1_iz7t7ze wrote

Europeans in the 19th century didn't quite understand the federal government wasn't going to make good on state debts sold to them and lost money.

Currently US Treasury bonds are considered among the safest, if boring, investments to hold around the world.

6

gaiusahala t1_izbcvv2 wrote

Right. The nuclear option (short of war) against these gulf petro-states would be seizing all their assets in the US. The more they buy up the better.

1

switch8000 t1_iz7sj5n wrote

Now I’ve got the damn song stuck in my head again.

0

The_CerealDefense t1_iz7i66p wrote

Oh I get this one, but I think the downsides are worse. Yes, you don't want your investment to go belly up, like for example when many countries nationalized industries and such. There's good and bad, but I think there needs to be a firmer line on things such as real estate acquisition vs. direct investment or equity investments which. The idea that a foreign nation collects rents like an artistocrat of old in the US is pretty fucking odd and comes with many issues

−2

akmalhot t1_iz80zm4 wrote

Doesn't the Saudi or Chinese fund own the iconic Waldorf Astoria in midtown east

6