China's Ghost Cities - Updated 09/10/22 Now tearing down ghost towns to "stimulate economy"

[pmv]

Incorrect. The acreage has way more value TO YOU, but dollar wise, it's worth far less than that condo in Toronto, I mean that is not possible to argue. Many people want to enjoy the amenities of a city, and to them, your acreage has zero value because they don't want to live in isolation, and that place in Toronto does have that value to them because they get to enjoy life the way they enjoy it.

To each their own.

Although that's true, I think there's a lot more to it than that. It seems as if that Chinese "ghost city" bubble is not confined to China. The insane cost of property here in London isn't purely about people 'wanting to enjoy the amenities of a city', it's also driven by the same mad speculative impulse described in the OP (often foreign money, including Russian and Chinese). Much of the new construction in London sits empty, it's owned by foreigners as 'an investment', not to live in, just as described in the OP video.

22,000 Homes Are Sitting Empty In London

Ouch.

londonist.com

Capitalism seems to be going senile in its old age.

 

[SKORPI0]

Ghost Towns, Abandoned Places & Historic Sites – Google My Maps

Places abandoned (or nearly abandoned) for any number of reasons. Submit an addition to the map: (Google Forms) https://forms.gle/qt6daZ1ADkYXdusv6 or email railtrace91@gmail.com This map includes Ghost Towns and Archaeological Sites, Abandoned Buildings, Theme Parks, Mines, other places...

www.google.com

Ghost Towns Map

A blog for remembering abandoned transportation routes, ghost towns, forgotten places, history, and Earth's interesting creations.

www.frrandp.com

 

[MrSquished]

Although that's true, I think there's a lot more to it than that. It seems as if that Chinese "ghost city" bubble is not confined to China. The insane cost of property here in London isn't purely about people 'wanting to enjoy the amenities of a city', it's also driven by the same mad speculative impulse described in the OP (often foreign money, including Russian and Chinese). Much of the new construction in London sits empty, it's owned by foreigners as 'an investment', not to live in, just as described in the OP video.

22,000 Homes Are Sitting Empty In London

Ouch.

londonist.com

Capitalism seems to be going senile in its old age.

Yes that is true that investors do park their money in some of the very high priced stuff, in NYC too. Some sit vacant, or as second or third homes. But we are talking here about properties in the tens and hundreds of millions for the most part. And, btw, I do think there should be laws that prohibit real estate for sitting vacant for x amount of time. But, the vast majority of real estate in NYC is occupied, whether by owners or renters. Vast majority.

But you are also proving my point, if the real value was in some acres of land in bumblefuck, which is what Squirrel said, why wouldn't the investors buy tons of that land instead as a wonderful investment? Because it would be a stupid investment financially. The reason city real estate is so valuable is because, well, a lot of people like to live there, which drives up values across the board.

Squirrel thinks just because he likes to be isolated and more alone and far from population centers, that's what every one likes. Hey if you like to just live out in the woods, with minimal human contact, few amenities, little to zero culture, I'm happy for you. You do you.

However he has no appreciation for the values of cities, as does Greenman. Who has literally stated it's the worst way to live. Again, if he wants to just live a quiet life, I'm happy for him, but he does not understand the value of real estate or the draw of city living for many. They are both closeminded fools.

Those guys are literally clueless. Most people are social animals. Small towns and acres of land are not sociable. It's small towns with a lot of gossipy closeminded people set in their ways. People like being in or near cities to be able to meet more people, people that like to explore different lifestyles, cultures, foods, music, art, and social lives. Everybody I know that lives around me is the same. I love going on a hike, I camp and backpack too. I love going to parks in the city as well, and long bike rides. A cabin in upstate NY or in PA is a lovely getaway to me. I love quiet nature plenty. But it would get boring as fuck if that was my permanent lifestyle. That's why I do me.

Last Monday we rode bikes and tried the first foreign outpost of Florence's most famous sandwich shop. Tomorrow we will go to a fantastic Japanese yakitori place. The next plan is an authentic Uighur restaurant, and then authentic Taiwanese street food the next week. It's nonstop options to explore cultures via their cuisine. I ain't getting that in bumblefuck anywhere. This is just one small example of the variety of things I can do that make me happy. So why is that land in the middle of nowhere of any value to me? It's only valuable to some people, and it's not most people.

 

[pmv]

Yes that is true that investors do park their money in some of the very high priced stuff, in NYC too. Some sit vacant, or as second or third homes. But we are talking here about properties in the tens and hundreds of millions for the most part. And, btw, I do think there should be laws that prohibit real estate for sitting vacant for x amount of time. But, the vast majority of real estate in NYC is occupied, whether by owners or renters. Vast majority.

But you are also proving my point, if the real value was in some acres of land in bumblefuck, which is what Squirrel said, why wouldn't the investors buy tons of that land instead as a wonderful investment? Because it would be a stupid investment financially. The reason city real estate is so valuable is because, well, a lot of people like to live there, which drives up values across the board.

Squirrel thinks just because he likes to be isolated and more alone and far from population centers, that's what every one likes. Hey if you like to just live out in the woods, with minimal human contact, few amenities, little to zero culture, I'm happy for you. You do you.

However he has no appreciation for the values of cities, as does Greenman. Who has literally stated it's the worst way to live. Again, if he wants to just live a quiet life, I'm happy for him, but he does not understand the value of real estate or the draw of city living for many. They are both closeminded fools.

Those guys are literally clueless. Most people are social animals. Small towns and acres of land are not sociable. It's small towns with a lot of gossipy closeminded people set in their ways. People like being in or near cities to be able to meet more people, people that like to explore different lifestyles, cultures, foods, music, art, and social lives. Everybody I know that lives around me is the same. I love going on a hike, I camp and backpack too. I love going to parks in the city as well, and long bike rides. A cabin in upstate NY or in PA is a lovely getaway to me. I love quiet nature plenty. But it would get boring as fuck if that was my permanent lifestyle. That's why I do me.

Last Monday we rode bikes and tried the first foreign outpost of Florence's most famous sandwich shop. Tomorrow we will go to a fantastic Japanese yakitori place. The next plan is an authentic Uighur restaurant, and then authentic Taiwanese street food the next week. It's nonstop options to explore cultures via their cuisine. I ain't getting that in bumblefuck anywhere. This is just one small example of the variety of things I can do that make me happy. So why is that land in the middle of nowhere of any value to me? It's only valuable to some people, and it's not most people.

I don't have strong preferences either way, myself, as far as city vs country. I don't really care about all the restarants and theatres - they're nice to walk past when going for a walk, but I almost never actually make any use of them.

I stay here for no other reason than it's where I belong, where I was born and raised, and where my family has lived for several generations. Anywhere outside the city would feel weird and alien

But remote rural type places absolutely have their appeal. In another life I'd be out there somewhere in the woods . I half wish when my various forebears had come here from the multiple bits of the world Britain violently took over they'd gone and settled in a prettier and calmer and cheaper part of the country, like rural Scotland...so then I'd be native to somewhere less expensive to live in...But those sorts of places aren't very welcoming to immigrants (heard of a study recently that found that people in urban areas become _less_ hostile to migrant groups the more of them that settle there, while in low-population-density rural places it works precisely the opposite way - the attitudes of the locals become increasingly negative and hostile, the more migrants arrive)

I do slightly resent the fact it's nearly impossible to get anywhere reasonable to live here if you aren't wealthy, because of everyone in the world, especially rich $%£%£$ trying to cram in to the place.

Was house-hunting not long ago, and it's really annoying that a tiny 1 bedroom flat (badly converted as part of what was a larger house) costs as much as a huge 6 bedroom mansion in other parts of the country. But I refuse to be forced out by economics.

Even more annoying when you realise that vast amounts of housing is tied up as 'investment' to make money for rent-seeking rich absent-owners, while significant numbers of people here are homeless.

That it's more the top-end of the market, in the central zone, that sits completely empty, doesn't change the fact that it causes a 'ripple effect' of driving even wealthy residents further out, in turn displacing the moderately-affluent professional types, and so on outwards and down the income-scale, till you get firefighters and teachers and other essential workers having to commute in from a hundred miles away.

(I do wish they'd housed all the Ukrainian refugees by confiscating the property portfolios of Russian oligarchs.)

Seems to me there's something going wrong when there's so much excess capital around that can't find any productive use. So instead of being used for real investment in something that actually creates wealth, it gets tied up in rent-seeking and speculation, like empty properties (and, apparently, entire empty cities) or crypto-bollocks.

 

[MrSquished]

I don't have strong preferences either way, myself, as far as city vs country. I don't really care about all the restarants and theatres - they're nice to walk past when going for a walk, but I almost never actually make any use of them.

I stay here for no other reason than it's where I belong, where I was born and raised, and where my family has lived for several generations. Anywhere outside the city would feel weird and alien

But remote rural type places absolutely have their appeal. In another life I'd be out there somewhere in the woods . I half wish when my various forebears had come here from the multiple bits of the world Britain violently took over they'd gone and settled in a prettier and calmer and cheaper part of the country, like rural Scotland...so then I'd be native to somewhere less expensive to live in...But those sorts of places aren't very welcoming to immigrants (heard of a study recently that found that people in urban areas become _less_ hostile to migrant groups the more of them that settle there, while in low-population-density rural places it works precisely the opposite way - the attitudes of the locals become increasingly negative and hostile, the more migrants arrive)

I do slightly resent the fact it's nearly impossible to get anywhere reasonable to live here if you aren't wealthy, because of everyone in the world, especially rich $%£%£$ trying to cram in to the place.

Was house-hunting not long ago, and it's really annoying that a tiny 1 bedroom flat (badly converted as part of what was a larger house) costs as much as a huge 6 bedroom mansion in other parts of the country. But I refuse to be forced out by economics.

Even more annoying when you realise that vast amounts of housing is tied up as 'investment' to make money for rent-seeking rich absent-owners, while significant numbers of people here are homeless.

That it's more the top-end of the market, in the central zone, that sits completely empty, doesn't change the fact that it causes a 'ripple effect' of driving even wealthy residents further out, in turn displacing the moderately-affluent professional types, and so on outwards and down the income-scale, till you get firefighters and teachers and other essential workers having to commute in from a hundred miles away.

(I do wish they'd housed all the Ukrainian refugees by confiscating the property portfolios of Russian oligarchs.)

Seems to me there's something going wrong when there's so much excess capital around that can't find any productive use. So instead of being used for real investment in something that actually creates wealth, it gets tied up in rent-seeking and speculation, like empty properties (and, apparently, entire empty cities) or crypto-bollocks.

Like I said, I'm fine with people wanting to live more rural lifestyles (except that most of them tend to vote for oppressive and bigoted politicians), but that's another story.

Also again, you can't conflate the ghost cities in China with the prices of real estate in Western Cities, totally different things.

My point is Squirrel and Greenman are just ignorant about the value of real estate. Sure real estate values can be inflated a bit, and a lot of it is because we don't build enough of it, but ultimately it's one of the safest assets to own in America long term in general. Because Squirrel doesn't like cities, he thinks that his acres of just woods at 40K is worth more than a condo in Toronto valued at over 800K. That is delusional. That condo in Toronto where a couple may live is worth 20X what his land is. He is only seeing through the lens of what HE values. Like I said, I'm happy he's happy living a quiet life going down right wing website rabbitholes, I'm just glad he can't vote in America. But if he likes the quiet life, fine. I get it, like I said I enjoy some quiet time camping or hiking or renting a cabin in the woods. But, that's a getaway for me, not a lifestyle. But if he wants to make it his lifestyle, I have nothing against it.

And Greenman implying the value of attractive city real estate is just human imagination, well he is just as clueless too. Again, he doesn't vibe with more than half the country. If he enjoys living out in some quiet area, by all means do it. I'm happy for you. But don't be so ignorant to not understand the value of city living for a shitload of people and how that defines the actual financial value of real estate. And it's how a lot of the economy works, cities drive the majority of our economy - not manufacturing or agriculture - which are both necessary, but they aren't the economic drivers of America anymore. And it's human nature for many people to be social creatures, so that means being near more people with more diversity, things I got more into in my last post.

They only have tunnel vision for their own personal beliefs, which is typical of conservatives, and why society is regressing.

 

[pmv]

Also again, you can't conflate the ghost cities in China with the prices of real estate in Western Cities, totally different things.

I'm not so sure about that. As I said, some of the speculative development and buying up of housing in this city actually involves Chinese money. I'm not sure the underlying dynamic is all that different from what drives the growth of those places in China itself. And, indeed, it's been observed that much of that expensive real-estate sits empty and unused. Ghost neighbourhoods rather than ghost cities, maybe, but a similar phenomenon.

My point is Squirrel and Greenman are just ignorant about the value of real estate. Sure real estate values can be inflated a bit, and a lot of it is because we don't build enough of it, but ultimately it's one of the safest assets to own in America long term in general. Because Squirrel doesn't like cities, he thinks that his acres of just woods at 40K is worth more than a condo in Toronto valued at over 800K. That is delusional. That condo in Toronto where a couple may live is worth 20X what his land is. He is only seeing through the lens of what HE values. Like I said, I'm happy he's happy living a quiet life going down right wing website rabbitholes, I'm just glad he can't vote in America. But if he likes the quiet life, fine. I get it, like I said I enjoy some quiet time camping or hiking or renting a cabin in the woods. But, that's a getaway for me, not a lifestyle. But if he wants to make it his lifestyle, I have nothing against it.

I don't have very strong feelings about that either way. I don't think one has to go full Moonbeam to find something very appealing about being close to nature and wilderness. But the city is just what I'm used to.

I guess the worst is the middle-ground - small towns that are neither one nor the other, where you can't walk very far without running out of urbanity and finding yourself in some never-ending soulless suburban or light-industrial sprawl, nothing interestingly urban but still with miles to go before reaching anything prettily rural.

It is curious how there's a correlation between low-population density and mad right-wing politics. Not sure which way round the causation runs, or if the association is causal at all.

 

[lxskllr]

I guess the worst is the middle-ground - small towns that are neither one nor the other, where you can't walk very far without running out of urbanity and finding yourself in some never-ending soulless suburban or light-industrial sprawl, nothing interestingly urban but still with miles to go before reaching anything prettily rural.

I'll disagree with this. My first place I went when moving out on my own was a down and out incorporated city, but think traditional small town. It was by the water, and there was a lot to see, and places to walk that didn't cost money. I still think of it as some of the best years of my life. Suburbia the horror middle ground. That's where I am now. It's just enough property to think you've got something, but not quite enough to do much with. Nowhere to walk, and not much to do you can walk to. Also, neighbors...

 

[MrSquished]

I'm not so sure about that. As I said, some of the speculative development and buying up of housing in this city actually involves Chinese money. I'm not sure the underlying dynamic is all that different from what drives the growth of those places in China itself. And, indeed, it's been observed that much of that expensive real-estate sits empty and unused. Ghost neighbourhoods rather than ghost cities, maybe, but a similar phenomenon.



I don't have very strong feelings about that either way. I don't think one has to go full Moonbeam to find something very appealing about being close to nature and wilderness. But the city is just what I'm used to.

I guess the worst is the middle-ground - small towns that are neither one nor the other, where you can't walk very far without running out of urbanity and finding yourself in some never-ending soulless suburban or light-industrial sprawl, nothing interestingly urban but still with miles to go before reaching anything prettily rural.

It is curious how there's a correlation between low-population density and mad right-wing politics. Not sure which way round the causation runs, or if the association is causal at all.

You're just not understanding this. You cannot compare Chinese government mandated cities being built with anything happening in the West, just cuz there's Chinese money here doing investing doesn't make it the same.

 

[sdifox]

What I don't get is if you're not allowed to live there how does it have any value? I guess it's really just treated like stocks or crypto, where on it's own it has no value, it only has value because it is set by the market. Just seems so odd to me that this system even works. I want land because of the utility value of it not because of some speculative thing. In fact I see cheap land in low population area as being much more valuable to me than expensive land in a high populated area. But guess the speculators don't see it that way.

I would never want to buy a $800,000 500 sqft lot in the middle of Toronto surrounded by buildings and traffic when I can buy a $40,000 acreage in the middle of nowhere where I can do what I want on it and it's not in a crowded city. That acreage has way more value.

You cannot own land in China. It's government property.

 

[pmv]

You're just not understanding this. You cannot compare Chinese government mandated cities being built with anything happening in the West, just cuz there's Chinese money here doing investing doesn't make it the same.

Well, maybe there's more direct government control involved in how it plays out in China, but sounds like the same speculative impulse is involved as well - plus there's plenty of state involvement in building developments here.

I'm just curious as to if it means anything that all this capital is being tied up in purely speculative, non-producitve, endeavors. Has capitalism run out of productive activities to capitalise?

 

[K1052]

The scale of Chinese development compared to anything in the west is like comparing an ocean liner to an inflatable zodiac. They both float on the water but there the similarities end.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I don't have strong preferences either way, myself, as far as city vs country. I don't really care about all the restarants and theatres - they're nice to walk past when going for a walk, but I almost never actually make any use of them.

I stay here for no other reason than it's where I belong, where I was born and raised, and where my family has lived for several generations. Anywhere outside the city would feel weird and alien

But remote rural type places absolutely have their appeal. In another life I'd be out there somewhere in the woods . I half wish when my various forebears had come here from the multiple bits of the world Britain violently took over they'd gone and settled in a prettier and calmer and cheaper part of the country, like rural Scotland...so then I'd be native to somewhere less expensive to live in...But those sorts of places aren't very welcoming to immigrants (heard of a study recently that found that people in urban areas become _less_ hostile to migrant groups the more of them that settle there, while in low-population-density rural places it works precisely the opposite way - the attitudes of the locals become increasingly negative and hostile, the more migrants arrive)

I do slightly resent the fact it's nearly impossible to get anywhere reasonable to live here if you aren't wealthy, because of everyone in the world, especially rich $%£%£$ trying to cram in to the place.

Was house-hunting not long ago, and it's really annoying that a tiny 1 bedroom flat (badly converted as part of what was a larger house) costs as much as a huge 6 bedroom mansion in other parts of the country. But I refuse to be forced out by economics.

Even more annoying when you realise that vast amounts of housing is tied up as 'investment' to make money for rent-seeking rich absent-owners, while significant numbers of people here are homeless.

That it's more the top-end of the market, in the central zone, that sits completely empty, doesn't change the fact that it causes a 'ripple effect' of driving even wealthy residents further out, in turn displacing the moderately-affluent professional types, and so on outwards and down the income-scale, till you get firefighters and teachers and other essential workers having to commute in from a hundred miles away.

(I do wish they'd housed all the Ukrainian refugees by confiscating the property portfolios of Russian oligarchs.)

Seems to me there's something going wrong when there's so much excess capital around that can't find any productive use. So instead of being used for real investment in something that actually creates wealth, it gets tied up in rent-seeking and speculation, like empty properties (and, apparently, entire empty cities) or crypto-bollocks.

My coworker built a tract home in 2019, sold it for a $125,000 profit in 2022 and moved into a rural area outside DFW because she and her husband got sick of the small backyard and city slickers.

They now live on 6 acres with a single family home they rent out to a friend and a double wide they occupy with their two children. The new property cost what they paid for the tract home back in 2019, so they kept all the profit.

Granted both homes needed work and the 6 acres were overgrown. Miraculously however the person they called to help clear the land up was so impressed with the amount of grass on the property that he offered to clear it on regular basis for free........and pay them for the grass he takes so he can sell as hay!! What a blessing!

They also plan to grow fruit and vegetables on the land while collecting rent from the friend and now hay for sale.

At night they sit on the porch, watch the stars and enjoy the sounds of tranquility.

 

[Captante]

My coworker built a tract home in 2019, sold it for a $125,000 profit in 2022 and moved into a rural area outside DFW because she and her husband got sick of the small backyard and city slickers.

They now live on 6 acres with a single family home they rent out to a friend and a double wide they occupy with their two children. The new property cost what they paid for the tract home back in 2019, so they kept all the profit.

Granted both homes needed work and the 6 acres were overgrown. Miraculously however the person they called to help clear the land up was so impressed with the amount of grass on the property that he offered to clear it on regular basis for free........and pay them for the grass he takes so he can sell as hay!! What a blessing!

They also plan to grow fruit and vegetables on the land while collecting rent from the friend and now hay for sale.

At night they sit on the porch, watch the stars and enjoy the sounds of tranquility.

Sure sounds like a more attractive "lifestyle" to me then living in a $2k + per month shoe-box sized apartment with cockroach's eating my eyebrows when I sleep, 24/7 traffic noise and clouds of stinky diesel fumes.

I love visiting NYC (and worked there for many years) BUT unless I was a millionaire and could afford a Park ave penthouse for my second-home I would not EVER want to live there!

 

[Homerboy]

WTF?

yeah - that's some crazy game of connect the dots.

 

[skull]

You cannot own land in China. It's government property.

You don't own land in the US either, try not paying monthly rent to the county. Thats another benefit of rural areas though, here in the city property taxes are more than my mortgage. Areas I've been looking at, semi annual property taxes are what I pay a month where I'm at.

 

[sdifox]

You don't own land in the US either, try not paying monthly rent to the county. Thats another benefit of rural areas though, here in the city property taxes are more than my mortgage. Areas I've been looking at, semi annual property taxes are what I pay a month where I'm at.

Of course you own land here...

 

[skull]

Of course you own land here...

You can think you do but in reality the government just lets you use it and if you don't pay them twice a year they will take it back.

 

[Red Squirrel]

You can think you do but in reality the government just lets you use it and if you don't pay them twice a year they will take it back.

Yeah pretty much. I mean sure you "own" it more than you would in China, but you don't really own it 100%. They can also tell you what you can and can't do on it and you still have to pay rent (taxes, water/sewer and other utilities etc), especially in a city. They can also condemn it if they really want to. Imminent domain or other reasons. Heard a story of someone that tried to go off grid in the city and they condemned their house and if owners tried to go they'd be charge for trespassing... on their own property. Because it belonged to the city now. Happened during covid to people's businesses too, the city charged owners for trespassing on their own property because they refused to close their business. So yeah, do you really own it if they can do that?

In an unorganized township you are pretty much left alone though and that is the closest to freedom and ownership you can get. You don't need permits for anything and can do what you want mostly and taxes are about $100/year which is not a huge deal compared to $400+ /month. Generally the further away you are from the general population the more freedom you have and the more you'll be left alone. But yeah you still have to pay taxes either way and at the end of the day if government really wanted to they could take the land away from you for any reason they see fit. So ownership here is still a rather gray area.

 

[sdifox]

You don't own land in the US either, try not paying monthly rent to the county. Thats another benefit of rural areas though, here in the city property taxes are more than my mortgage. Areas I've been looking at, semi annual property taxes are what I pay a month where I'm at.

They wouldn't need to eminent domain if you don't own your land.

 

[MrSquished]

They wouldn't need to eminent domain if you don't own your land.

Indeed. People just like to think society can function without governments having money to do things. Now if you want to talk how efficiently that money is used sometimes, we can have a discussion. There's plenty to be had there. But indeed, you do own property and land in the United States.

 

[Torn Mind]

Ownership is holding title. Compared to owning a durable good, owning a house is a far weaker degree of ownership because failure to pay dues triggers the process to lose title.

Furthermore, most owners start off with a mortgage, thus they aren't really in the clear until the pay off the debt.

Holding ownership then gives possession and a certain degree of freedom to use the property; this depends highly on population density and newness of the development.

If, for example, someone loses their wits and get stuck in the nursing home system(often due to a nosy community with an HOA), the state can move to seize control of the funds from the owner to pay debts. Got family? Too bad if you weren't prepared to add a name or get the transfer via will down pat before losing it.

Government does not take title, but it can compel loss of title to another upon failure to pay dues. If ownership requires payment periodically like this, this is basically "paying rent".

 

[MrSquished]

Ownership is holding title. Compared to owning a durable good, owning a house is a far weaker degree of ownership because failure to pay dues triggers the process to lose title.

Furthermore, most owners start off with a mortgage, thus they aren't really in the clear until the pay off the debt.

Holding ownership then gives possession and a certain degree of freedom to use the property; this depends highly on population density and newness of the development.

If, for example, someone loses their wits and get stuck in the nursing home system(often due to a nosy community with an HOA), the state can move to seize control of the funds from the owner to pay debts. Got family? Too bad if you weren't prepared to add a name or get the transfer via will down pat before losing it.

Government does not take title, but it can compel loss of title to another upon failure to pay dues. If ownership requires payment periodically like this, this is basically "paying rent".

Most people are paying rent to a bank, not the government.

 

[Torn Mind]

Most people are paying rent to a bank, not the government.

There is nothing special about government collecting coin vs a private entity. Rent as commonly definied has component of:
1. making payment to a "master"
2. obtain use of something in exchange for that payment. Property taxes vary, but $3,600 a year, or $300 for a "lower middle-class" place is not uncommon.
3. Defaulting on payment can trigger the "master" to boot the possessor of the property to leave in a very formal process that is slow.

If one pays off the entire amount due and clears themselves of a mortgage, the internal compulsion to pay the taxes to avoid tax liens is greater than someone with a mortgage partly paid. The property would get auctioned off for much less than the what the owner sunk into it, thus the surplus the owner gets if he doesn't redeem the property would result in a big loss, if anyone is alive or aware to claim that surplus.
My mom owns her property with no mortgage. The property taxes are still an obligation in perpetuity, and so are the HOA dues. Thus, even with hundreds of thousands actually sunk into the "purchase", loss of title can be forced if for whatever reason, the payment doesn't get made.

Whereas with other things that are "owned", paying off in full usually entails full control, no further payments, and no intermediary forcing transfer of the goods to another due to the "periodic usage fee".

The bureaucratic arm of the government is the most predatory fund-seeking, because unlike the votable arm, the hired hands like attorneys, social workers, police etc do not have effective mechanisms for removal in case of small abuses. City attorney violates a law? Violated has to pay the appeal fee first, pay a lawyer for legal advice, then get the hearing done, and if the violated wins, the city just has to pay costs to the other court, etc.

Bureaucratic misconduct is desirable to government because it increases revenues with no penalty, and if a penalty does come around, the crony industry of lawyers benefit from economic stimuli out of the need to try to battle against the government.

As a tidbit, some places in the states allow for a "ground rent" arrangement, like around the Baltimore area.

 

[sdifox]

You don't have enough money to buy the property, you borrow from the bank. You default on the repayment, so the bank forcloses your mortgage. How is that the government's fault?

Furthermore, if you don't own the property, why would you pay the property tax?

 

[zinfamous]

You don't own land in the US either, try not paying monthly rent to the county. Thats another benefit of rural areas though, here in the city property taxes are more than my mortgage. Areas I've been looking at, semi annual property taxes are what I pay a month where I'm at.

not the same.

Compare China "ownership" to owning a trailer home in the US--the owner/landlord of the trailer park owns the land that your mobile home sits on, you pay them a lease for this, while you own the mobile home itself.

Are you saying that is the same model for all home ownership in the US? ...I'm pretty sure that it isn't.