Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 173 posts

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#21

Post by Retric »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #14
camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

A better argument would be that the government cannot force the person to enter into a contract with a private party.

They aren’t, owners could for example occupy their own property or sell it.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#22

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

tomcam wrote: post #8
camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

Are there any limiting principles to your perspective? Do you feel it would be acceptable for your municipality to tax your disuse of expensive guitars, riding mowers, boats, or graphics cards you don't actually employ to their satisfaction?

Sure, if voters elect politicians who enact taxes like that, the judicial branch shouldn’t stand in their way. The remedy for that problem would be the ballot box.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#24

Post by humanistbot »

tomcam wrote: post #8
camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

Are there any limiting principles to your perspective? Do you feel it would be acceptable for your municipality to tax your disuse of expensive guitars, riding mowers, boats, or graphics cards you don't actually employ to their satisfaction?

Not OP, but the limiting principle is democracy. That's what gets you off the slippery slope. A tax on vacant homes passed a referendum, but barely at 54.5%, and SF is probably the least landlord-friendly city in the US.

Nobody is proposing city taxes on unused guitars, boats, or graphics cards. That would never pass. There is no public policy benefit to doing so, other than generic tax revenue. And if it did, I would move and feel comfortable doing so because I would not want to live in a city whose majority voting population is bananas.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#25

Post by camgunz »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #14
camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

A better argument would be that the government cannot force the person to enter into a contract with a private party.

No one's being forced (which is a synonym of compelled) to do anything. Taxation is not compulsion.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#26

Post by Retric »

TedShiller wrote: post #18
GalenErso wrote: post #13

Vacancy taxes are good but not enough by themselves. S.F. needs more housing, including middle housing, three or four story buildings with multiple units. The market dynamics that apply to shampoo and fridges apply to housing as well. Prices are elevated because of an imbalance between supply and demand. Supply must rise to match demand. Let investors and speculators snatch up new housing units, at least at first. In…

> S.F. needs more housing Always funny to see this taken at face value. SF doesn’t “need” housing. People want to pay less for housing. Not the same thing at all.

S.F. suffers from insufficient housing, calling it a need is just a handy shortcut.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#27

Post by db48x »

gausswho wrote: post #12
tomcam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any limiting principles to your perspective? Do you feel it would be acceptable for your municipality to tax your disuse of expensive guitars, riding mowers, boats, or graphics cards you don't actually employ to their satisfaction?

Your analogy doesn't hold, because owning and neglecting such items doesn't prevent someone else from having them. Property speculation is so runaway that landlords are keeping properties vacant because they hope to make more money on rising real estate values alone.

The number of top–end GPUs in existence is finite and surprisingly small. If I buy one, that is one fewer for everyone else to squabble over. It is in effect just the same as land, and GPU prices are much higher today than they were 5 years ago. Even 5 year old used GPUs cost as much or more than they did 5 years ago.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#28

Post by [deleted] »

camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

[deleted]

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#29

Post by mdmglr »

camgunz wrote: post #5

"“The government cannot compel a property owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said." A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed. Feels like the kind of lazy argument you'd lob up just to give your fellow rich people an opportunity to bail you out in a hyper undemo…

> A vacancy tax no more compels someone to rent their property than an income tax compels me to be unemployed.

This analogy doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you can clarify.

Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax

#30

Post by gotoeleven »

camgunz wrote: post #19
tomcam wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any limiting principles to your perspective? Do you feel it would be acceptable for your municipality to tax your disuse of expensive guitars, riding mowers, boats, or graphics cards you don't actually employ to their satisfaction?

Yes, housing is a fundamental human need and expensive guitars aren't. Call it the Shkreli principle.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN