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

11–20 of 173 posts

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

#11

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 homeowners trying to rent cannot find tenants at any price.

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

#12

Post by gausswho »

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?

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.

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

#13

Post by GalenErso »

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. Investors do not have access to unlimited capital. If $100B worth of new housing hit the market overnight, it would be impossible for investors to buy them all. Keep building housing until investors run out of money and normal people can start buying them.

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

#14

Post by Overtonwindow »

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.

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

#16

Post by rhaway84773 »

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?

There’s no comparison. Land already has a ton of riders attached to it, because ultimately a city, state, or nation is defined by the land they control.

For example, we would all be justifiably outraged if the government declared that SF buyers are only allowed to buy AMD graphics cards, while those living in Oakland are allowed only Nvidia, and the rest of the people in the area are not allowed graphics cards at all.

And yet, while many like me dislike land zoning, which is basically equivalent to the graphics card example, no one is calling it a fundamentally illegal and unconstitutional practice.

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

#17

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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?

Some states have annual property tax on cars and boats.

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

#18

Post by TedShiller »

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.

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

#19

Post by camgunz »

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?

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