Please don't take this personnaly as I'm not targeting you specifically with my comment: but I don't know how I feel about wealthy foreigners coming to a place, buy property and extract rent from locals, who may not even be able to afford ownership in the first place.
> Please don't take this personnaly as I'm not targeting you specifically with my comment: but I don't know how I feel about wealthy foreigners coming to a place, buy property and extract rent from locals, who may not even be able to afford ownership in the first place.
Weird statement. Don't worry, I wouldn't take your uncertainty about your own feelings personally.
However, I do understand you, and this is something we've struggled with. My wife is a Turk, and at first when we realized "hey, if we sell my house in Mendocino, we can live like princes in Istanbul, or kings on the Aegean", and once that novelty wore off, we decided that we weren't those people.
The argument itself can apply to anywhere. In San Francisco, I spent 10 years living in illegal punk warehouses where I was not a gentrifier, but then I spent 10 years living in Oakland, where I was a gentrifier, even though I'm from California.
Where does the line get drawn? Is it OK to have the $$ to buy a nicer place anywhere in my own country? What about my home state?
I guess the line could be at: I made money in the US and benefited from being a US citizen, but now I pack my things and go live elsewhere so I can benefit from the wealth differential in that country and extract rent from people there.
I guess if a bunch of wealthy people came to Detroit and bought properties and extracted rent from much poorer citizens with less upward mobility and nearly no chance to own a property of them own, that would be the same problem.
