San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#61

Post by compiler-guy » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

asdfadsfgfdda wrote: post #22

rb808 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least an American billionaire pays some American taxes. If a foreign speculator makes a lot of money they aren't even paying any income or capital gains taxes here.

They are still paying plenty in property tax. From the city's perspective, you couldn't ask for a better resident. Somebody who pays full property tax and consumes almost no services (schools, police, etc).

They do consume one thing: housing stock that would otherwise be available to residents. Whether or not that outweighs the benefits of paying taxes but not consuming city services is a different issue.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#62

Post by happytoexplain » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

lrajlich wrote: post #35

Counter argument: SF has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the country. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/3/21/18276227/vacancy-rate-san-jo... This article is promoting a bad faith argument used by anti development activists.

I can see why somebody might view that as a counter argument intuitively, but as somebody who cares about the problem in a real, practical sense, it's immediately obvious to me that the point isn't to criticise the city's vacancy rate in a void, but to compare it to the potential waste. In a city where prices are disgustingly high and homelessness is appallingly common, the vacancy rate becomes much more sensitive to pragmatic criticism. Simply pointing out that other cities have a higher rate doesn't affect the criticism. Perhaps those other cities wouldn't benefit as much from lowering the vacancy rate. Perhaps those other cities would benefit a comparable amount, and we should hold them to the same criticism rather than declaring the criticism invalid.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#63

Post by woah » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

zapita wrote: post #44

woah wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of homeowners in SF who have made huge gains from their property investment pay lip service to their liberal worldview by insisting that any new construction must meet the most stringent review and have a very high percentage of units set aside for affordable housing. This way they are able to stop new construction, exacerbating the housing crisis and making their investment more valuable, while claiming they ar…

Also lots of deflection by blaming tech workers for cost increases.

Yes, don’t be mad at your landlord for charging high rent, be mad at other tenants

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#64

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #14

You can't build yourself out of the housing crisis when the problem is one of distribution, not one of supply. The idea that housing should be treated as an investment is, itself , the problem. How can you want housing to be affordable while also wanting housing to gain in value, i.e. increase in cost? These are completely contradictory aims. Zoom out for a second and consider how wild it is that we turned a life nec…

> the housing crisis when the problem is one of distribution, not one of supply.

What’s your thesis for this? If the supply suddenly quintupled in the Bay Area and the population halved, I doubt we’d be calling it a “housing crisis”. Prices would fall dramatically because of supply.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#65

Post by sidlls » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

macinjosh wrote: post #41

biznickman wrote: post #4

When I lived in San Francisco, the newly built condo building across from me was fully empty (but fully sold) for all the years I lived there. This is a tower in SOMA. There was only one apartment which appeared to be a corporate one that was occasionally utilized. The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. San Francisco has felt the brunt of this due to their insa…

> The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. If the property tax is paid and the maintenance is kept up what is the problem created solely by the fact some homes are empty? The only reason these properties have such high values is because there is a demand that is not being supplied. Supplying more housing makes this a non-issue. > San Francisco has felt the brunt…

The fact that there are so many empty homes should be a bright, shining clue that basic supply vs. demand isn't the only factor at work.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#66

Post by damnyou » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:12 PM UTC

GrayTextIsTruth wrote: post #53

damnyou wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American billionaires dont pay much taxes either. The solution to this is to fix the tax code, not retreat further into nationalism.

>not retreat further into nationalism God forbid we feel any natural affinity towards our fellow countrymen. Any alternative is so artificial and forced.

correct! I believe that the only groups it is moral to care about are:

* people you love, care about, or otherwise know socially

* groups that are oppressed along some axis

* all of humanity

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#67

Post by lkbm » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #40

biznickman wrote: post #4

When I lived in San Francisco, the newly built condo building across from me was fully empty (but fully sold) for all the years I lived there. This is a tower in SOMA. There was only one apartment which appeared to be a corporate one that was occasionally utilized. The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. San Francisco has felt the brunt of this due to their insa…

There are houses throughout the Bay Area sitting empty, just being used as a relatively safe store of value. That goal is already achieved without having to deal with the overhead of managing the property and tenants. So the homes just sit... empty.

Seems strange. Surely a management company would happily handle all that hassle and provide a secondary income stream. Sign a couple forms and boost investment income by a few percent?

Surely that's not significantly more burdensome than the bureaucratic hassle of purchasing the property in the first place.

I guess there's some significant tax/regulatory difference between capital gains from holding property vs. an income stream from renting said property.

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#68

Post by happytoexplain » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

Jamwinner wrote: post #3

But lets continue taking public policy talking points from them. /s

From whom? And who is doing the "taking", and how do you know where it is "taken" from? What is the relationship between the umbrella concept of all public policy and this specific issue?

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#69

Post by forwhomst » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

This is a bad-faith argument advanced by the opponents of construction (landowners, essentially). The facts are that San Francisco vacancy rate is among the lowest in the nation, stands near the all-time low for that city, and is way below the level required for a healthy housing market. You need liquidity for a functioning market, and liquidity means vacancy.

The NIMBY groups who advanced this exact narrative in Los Angeles had to retract their "study" because it was BS. https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/471675-...

Re: San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

#70

Post by sidlls » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #60

biznickman wrote: post #4

When I lived in San Francisco, the newly built condo building across from me was fully empty (but fully sold) for all the years I lived there. This is a tower in SOMA. There was only one apartment which appeared to be a corporate one that was occasionally utilized. The rise of foreign money parking money in real estate has screwed things up on a global level. San Francisco has felt the brunt of this due to their insa…

There is an easy solution preventing empty homes in markets with a high rate of vacant homes combined with a high rate of involuntary homeless: a tax of 40% of the value as recorded at deed transfer per year of emptiness. Exceptions only given in case of reasonable vacancy (e.g. due to construction works or damages). If the property ends up vacant for 2 years, government appoints random renters - for a maximum rent n…

I think this is the kernel of a great idea. Empty homes in urban areas especially ought to be relatively rare and we need to have ways to incentivize utilization--with both carrot and stick.