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

31–40 of 173 posts

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

#31

Post by rgifford »

camgunz wrote: post #25
Overtonwindow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's pretty coercive. Taxes are levied against transactions. A tax in the absence of a transaction is really just a fine. And fining people for not selling something violates most folks conception of basic property rights and privacy.

I get that the city is looking for a way out of 50 years of systematic underdevelopment, but this just feels wrong. I don't trust government overreach to fix decades of bad governance.

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

#32

Post by ProAm »

camgunz wrote: post #25
Overtonwindow wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Taxation is not compulsion.

It's the threat of imprisonment if you do not comply.

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

#33

Post by sundaeofshock »

koolba wrote: post #23

This will get spicy if the tax itself is upheld, but the exclusions for single family homes and 3-or-less unit buildings is thrown out. Are there any examples of a similar tax in other parts of CA or elsewhere in the USA?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/speculation-vacancy...

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

#35

Post by codemac »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #17
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?

Some states have annual property tax on cars and boats.

... they already have those on housing. No one taxes you more or less because of how frequently you use your boat, or if you rent your boat to others, etc.

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

#36

Post by jmplng »

themitigating wrote: post #6
jmplng wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s sad because it’s true — politics and governing here seems far more insane than anywhere else I’ve lived in terms of a focus on bananas laws/taxes/regulations instead of just getting the core job done. It’s a great place in a lot of ways, that could be great in a lot more. (No particular opinion on this tax as I intend to leave regardless).

Seems? Maybe because right wing media has constantly stated this opinion over years you think it's just a fact.

I mean, I lived here 12 years and in a Midwest city 10 years before that. There’s a big difference. Obviously for any 1 human the N will be small. So I used “seems” to indicate that while that’s my experience I don’t have like a study to prove it.

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

#37

Post by darkwizard42 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #11
baggy_trough wrote: post #2

Definitely a nasty tax. Another example of why you should not locate your home or business in SF - the voters love to tax anything no matter what the harmful effects are.

> voters love to tax anything no matter what the harmful effects are I broadly share your view of San Francisco's civic culture. But what are the unexpected consequences of a vacancy tax? Practically every problem I think of, e.g. developers getting hit when the market goes down being forced to fire sell, has a simple solution (renting on short-term leases). The only failure mode is market breakdown, i.e. where homeo…

I can guess that if market breakdown occurs there are much larger problems to resolve. Some potential situations:

- social situation untenable (too much homelessness or crime?)

- earthquake or natural disaster making the area uninhabitable

- massive glut of housing available (lol)

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

#38

Post by AdrianB1 »

humanistbot wrote: post #24
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?

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 woul…

Unfortunately moving the house is not an option, otherwise these taxes would be almost fine (as long as you have a choice).

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

#39

Post by onos »

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.

But is housing in SF a fundamental need?

I think the question posed is quite relevant, and FWIW my take is that property rights are a concern here. The answer is that there are other concerns in tension with this — including the desire to have more affordable housing in The city and voters apparently consider this to be more important in this case.

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

#40

Post by meepmorp »

mdmglr wrote: post #29
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.

You're not required to rent, but you would pay the tax if the property is unrented. You still have the option of not renting, but that's no longer a cost free choice.
Post reply on HN