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

151–160 of 173 posts

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

#151

Post by HDThoreaun »

yumraj wrote: post #70

I don't live in SF and don't have a home to rent, yet I just don't understand the rationale behind this law. I absolutely support rent control and various other provisions, but there could be many reasons for a person not wanting to rent. Next, will I be forced to rent my car to those who don't have one, or forced to rent rooms in my house if not enough people in my household etc. This is a very slippery slope. NOTE:…

The housing problem in SF is entirely due to lack of supply. There is a limited amount of land in SF, you can't just go and build more land and because of that it is very difficult to solve the supply problem. Disincentivizing vacancy is one method of increasing housing supply. If you don't want to rent your property you should sell it to someone who is.

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

#152

Post by HDThoreaun »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #142
gausswho wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are free to keep or sell as the populace around them votes how best their land is used.

That is called mob rule.

As opposed to minority rule by land holders?

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

#153

Post by beej71 »

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.

It's like the ACA. It was never illegal to not have health insurance. You wouldn't go to jail. Technically you weren't even penalized. You were just taxed at a higher rate. SCOTUS was on board with that, since Congress has the power to tax.

It's not illegal to not have kids. You won't go to jail. You're not penalized. You're just taxed at a higher rate.

It's not illegal to be employed. You won't go to jail. You're not penalized. You're just taxed at a higher rate.

It's not illegal to keep a vacant rental. You won't go to jail. You're not penalized. You're just taxed at a higher rate.

All of those are compelling in the same way: "Do this thing and we'll tax you less."

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

#154

Post by beej71 »

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?

If society got pissed off enough about your unused guitar, you betcher ass they'd pass a law taxing it. It's not The Government you're up against--it's The People!

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

#155

Post by unethical_ban »

rgifford wrote: post #99
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…

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…

So if I sign a 12 month lease, you can't decline to renew my lease at 12 months? All leases are indefinite?

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

#156

Post by unethical_ban »

beej71 wrote: post #150
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're literally whining about your inability to kick someone out of their home.

This is the crux of it. You say "their home", they say "my home". "This is my house. I own it. I should be free to kick anyone out at any time for any reason or no reason." One's reaction to the above sentence probably shows which side of the fence one is on fairly quickly.

This is the crux of it. Maybe individualsamd organizations should be capped on the number of single family residences they can own in a city. Real estate is a unique property and we should all have a place to live.

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

#157

Post by darkwizard42 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #155
rgifford wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if I sign a 12 month lease, you can't decline to renew my lease at 12 months? All leases are indefinite?

There are schemes to knock a tenant out, but generally in SF county, 12-month leases roll over into monthly terms with very little the landlord can do as long as the tenant keeps paying and abiding by the terms of the original lease.

Now, raising the rent (in a non-rent controlled unit) and then renegotiating the lease are options but if the tenant does not comply and keeps paying the original lease's rent there are a LOT of protections in favor of the tenant.

Won't comment on if these are all fair or not, but there has been lots of bad behavior on both sides to cause regulation to come up. Being a landlord in SF is not easy, but simultaneously, finding a place to live which is affordable is tough as well as a renter.

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

#158

Post by baggy_trough »

bubblethink wrote: post #120
rgifford wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But then why own property beyond your primary residence ? Them's the rules. If you don't want the hassle, sell and move on. The fundamental issue is lack of liquidity in the market coupled with artificially low supply. This applies to both buying and renting. Nobody moves because everyone has a sweet deal (renters locked in rent control, owners locked in low property tax rates).

The rules are terrible and should be changed, that's the point.

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

#159

Post by camgunz »

dogma1138 wrote: post #147
camgunz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People automatically equate taxation with fines and coercion, but they're separate concepts. The best example is the income tax. If we slap taxes on things we don't want people to do, then why do we literally tax work, a thing we want almost everyone to do? So taxes aren't fines or fees, and they don't force you to stop doing something you want to do or do something you don't want to. People still buy groceries despi…

Taxation is very much used to incentivize certain behaviors and penalize others. Hence why we have tax efficient retirement savings, why certain expenses are tax deductible whilst others aren’t and why certain goods such as tobacco and alcohol might have additional taxes levied on them.

Incentivizing is neither forcing nor compulsion. Taxing someone for doing something or not doing something does not force them to do the opposite.

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

#160

Post by yumraj »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #151
yumraj wrote: post #70

I don't live in SF and don't have a home to rent, yet I just don't understand the rationale behind this law. I absolutely support rent control and various other provisions, but there could be many reasons for a person not wanting to rent. Next, will I be forced to rent my car to those who don't have one, or forced to rent rooms in my house if not enough people in my household etc. This is a very slippery slope. NOTE:…

The housing problem in SF is entirely due to lack of supply. There is a limited amount of land in SF, you can't just go and build more land and because of that it is very difficult to solve the supply problem. Disincentivizing vacancy is one method of increasing housing supply. If you don't want to rent your property you should sell it to someone who is.

> If you don't want to rent your property you should sell it to someone who is.

What if I'm old and don't want the hassle of renters OR perhaps my house is not in a condition that it can be rented without substantial investment in fixing it which I can't afford right now OR am just keeping the house to sell later to pay for my retirement or to give to my kids as inheritance OR any number of reasons.

I shouldn't be forced to pay a tax on top of the property tax nor should I be forced to sell it.

Post reply on HN