Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, housing is a fundamental human need and expensive guitars aren't. Call it the Shkreli principle.
[flagged]
[deleted]
S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
51–60 of 173 posts
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The landlords are free to move out of SF as much as tenants are. Nobody is held at gunpoint.
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#53Regardless of politics, landlords who deliberately keep empty apartments off-market are a menace to society. If CA can't sue these people into infinity I don't know another state that can and no rent-control isn't the answer here...
It's literally a bigger problem facing the working class or anyone without a mommy and daddy check than the diamond industry creating false scarcity and still propping up the price of "natural" diamonds over lab stones...
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a fundamental need for some people, if you want to have a healthy city where firefighters, teachers, baristas, servers, etc. can live there without having the city's cost of living externalized via multiple hour megacommutes.
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#55Earlier 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.
Let's not associate such positives with Shkreli.
I agree, access to healthcare is a fundamental human right. Shkreli might have liked to act like Robin Hood, "You'll only ever pay $10/month for a medicine, I'll make insurers pay the rest", a laughably condescending perspective that only shows that he believes enough people are too ignorant to make the connection of where exactly insurance pools come from, their indirect income. But many people glommed on to that.
Here's an example of Shkreli showing his real stripes:
A drug comes before the FDA for approval, and it is opened up for comment. Shkreli lodges an objection to approval of this drug.
Why? Because it's unsafe? No, trials thus far have shown it to be safer than existing drugs.
Why? Because it's less effective? No, it's also been shown to be more effective than existing drugs?
Perhaps it's more expensive? No, cost of R&D and production, and estimated retail costs are expected to be lower than existing drugs.
Huh, odd. So why did Shkreli oppose this drug getting to the market?
Because he and his company had just bought the patent to one of those 'existing drugs' recently, and this drug coming to market would torpedo demand for his drug, and torpedo the profitability of his investment in buying the patent.
Man of the people, fighting for healthcare rights, Martin Shkreli.
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Housing is a little more of a critical need for people than graphics cards…
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#57Definitely 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.
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).
Because of Prop 13 and the various extensions passed by HJTA (eg Prop 218) the state needs to come up with increasingly bananas schemes to fund public services.
In a sane place we'd simply adjust property taxes but that's not possible in California.
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#58It is just another form of property tax, you can keep your units vacant and keep paying “vacant property tax”, or you can let people live in and collect rent and pay reduced taxes
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You've got an easy, built-in way to avoid the tax if you don't want to pay it.
Re: S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Do they also suffer from insufficient Lamborghinis?