121–130 of 173 posts
"“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…
Why are these properties vacant? I'm pretty familiar as a renter and property owner with tenants rights in SF. If I were to buy a duplex in the city I would never ever ever rent out the extra unit. I'd lie about tenancy, ask a friend to pretend to rent it, or pay this proposed tax rather than rent it out. I'd recommend the same to everyone. Tenants are a liability for landlords in SF. You cannot end a tenancy, not wi…
As for your other points, yes, the government is trying to incentivize that inventory back on to the market (by disincentivizing keeping it off). Yes, they are doing it in response to a situation they took part in creating. Is this more or less likely than tenant termination freedom to result in more housing being available? That sounds like every market de-regulation argument ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"“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.
How hard is it to fake being occupied? Pay someone a modest amount to live in the unit on paper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The property owner already pays property taxes so it’s not ‘free’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe a couple decided to buy a second home or a duplex instead of investing in the S&P500. Just want to address this particular point. That’s the problem. People want to use houses as an investment vehicle rather than a place to actually to live in. You want a buy a second, third , or even fourth house fine . But what should not happen is others are unable to live in the same city because people wanted to make mor…
People buying a second home are not the problem. A healthy housing market needs rental housing stock. We have to have places for people in transitory phases of life, for people struggling, for retirees that want to live off the value of their house after downsizing or divorcees or folks trying the city on for size. Supply is the problem and bad governance created it. Why do we keep turning it around on individuals th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"“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 is a bad analogy because an income tax is supposed to be for raising revenue, and it is generally understood that it should not be too high that it discourages too much economic activity. On the other hand, the Proposition M vacancy tax is explicitly intended to “disincentivize prolonged vacancies” by ta…
Seems to discourage the lack thereof.