> Proponents goal is to make "similar" improvements provide the same net profit across the country, even if the rent for it is $800 in Detroit and $4000 in Manhattan. The taxes would be $300 in Detroit and $3500 in Manhattan. Therefore a developer looking for $500/mo profit could just as easily build in Detroit as in Manhattan.

Thanks, I understand a little better now. I'm still not convinced that such a thing will be viable, though.

The end result is still going to be that people will be willing to pay more to live in Manhattan rather than Detroit ($4000 vs $800, for example), and thus the effective rent being charged is not going to change.

> After the demand for housing was satisfied by supply rents would fall, and LVT would fall as well, such that landlords continue making $500/mo profit on each of those identical units.

Maybe; I remain unconvinced that simply replacing low-density houses with high-density houses in the middle of (for example) Manhattan is going reach a point where supply:demand ratio is the same as Detroit.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out, so I'm quite happy for this to happen :-)