Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 332 posts

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#131

Post by wwweston »

akulbe wrote: post #127

It doesn't make sense to me why they'd WANT to leave them empty?? If I were a landlord, I'd be doing my best to keep the rentals occupied as much as possible.

You know how some people say that if you're going for investors for your start up, it's better to sell them on user engagement & growth rather than revenue, because revenue brackets what you're potentially worth? I bet it's something like that. If you rent at a certain price, that brackets the property (and depending on the lease, maybe even locks it in).

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#132

Post by spoondan »

bradleybuda wrote: post #69
CydeWeys wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim I was responding to was that people should be able to do "whatever they want" with their properties, which encompasses a lot more than just leaving them vacant. But to answer your specific question, the most obvious negative externality is increased rents for other people, because an apartment that could be being rented out (increasing supply) isn't being rented out. Having lots of vacant residences also po…

Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware? By not selling your things, you are making those things more expensive for everyone else. Therefore, you are creating a negative externality by not selling your things, and storing unused property in your garage and basement should be illegal. What you are describing is not an “externality” in the way that…

The ability to apply the same argument to another situation has no probative value. Any policy has its pros and cons. One can support vacancy taxes/fines without supporting other taxes on unused possessions.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#133

Post by arebop »

akulbe wrote: post #127

It doesn't make sense to me why they'd WANT to leave them empty?? If I were a landlord, I'd be doing my best to keep the rentals occupied as much as possible.

According to the article, is mostly speculators betting that the property values will rise faster than the market consensus (these speculators don't want to be locked into leases that will soon undervalue the property). Also, it is arbitrageurs who think they can profit by repurposing the units (e.g., hotel/airbnb conversion).

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#134

Post by ripa »

akulbe wrote: post #127

It doesn't make sense to me why they'd WANT to leave them empty?? If I were a landlord, I'd be doing my best to keep the rentals occupied as much as possible.

If the value rises considerably in a few years for you to make a decent profit, then its mostly a headache (and operating costs, wear and tear etc) to have tenants .

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#135

Post by baroffoos »

akulbe wrote: post #127

It doesn't make sense to me why they'd WANT to leave them empty?? If I were a landlord, I'd be doing my best to keep the rentals occupied as much as possible.

Because renting doesn't make you that much money and you have to work for it. Just leaving it sitting there and selling it later is no effort profit

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#136

Post by l4yao »

parthdesai wrote: post #105
l4yao wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this argument a lot whenever Airbnb is mentioned. Do you have a source available? Rent has increased significantly in Toronto recently. How do you know Airbnb is a significant factor?

Here, according this[0] report Toronto has around 6200 entire units as airbnb units. That's at the very least 6200 less rental units in the market. And you know very well how supply and demand works. Anecdotal, but the couple in my neighbouring unit recently bought a condo and moved out. Guess what happened to that unit. It's a full time airbnb unit now. My floor has 12 units, and out of it 3 are full time airbnb uni…

I think it's reasonable to assume Airbnb reduces supply. I don't see how you can conclude the 30% rent increase you experienced was largely driven by Airbnb.

Lets say anyone renting out their unit for less than half a year wouldn't have put the unit on the rental market anyways. If you download and dive into the data, you'll see that there are ~9550 "Entire home/apt" listings, of which 5992 are available for less than half the year, leaving only 3558 units. In a city the size of Toronto, that seems negligible.

Data: http://data.insideairbnb.com/canada/on/toronto/2019-03-07/vi...

Even if we took Fairbnb's number at face value, it still seems small relative to Toronto's total number of rental units.

Here is a report published by McGill's School of Urban Planning, commissioned by the Hotel Trades Council, that found Airbnb responsible for a 1.3% rent increase over a 3 year period in New York: https://mcgill.ca/newsroom/files/newsroom/channels/attach/ai...

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#138

Post by bsanr2 »

jonfw wrote: post #95
baddox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it seems like this only works if they conspire or if there are large property holders. Maybe it’s the latter? If I own two houses and left one empty it certainly wouldn’t change the total supply enough to comeback out ahead.

Or, this doesn't work. Such a conspiracy would easily be covered by anti-monopoly laws in the US, I'm sure that there would be some equivalent law in Spain. The real reason buildings would stay vacant is either ownership attempting to charge above market for rent, or land speculators who are looking to hold and flip, without developing it enough so it can be used in the meantime.

How strictly and often are those laws enforced? I don't think anyone is suggesting that they gather together in a back-alley kitchen to talk shop with the Joker. Rather, it's not unreasonable to think that many of the people involved in an area's real estate market are connected, socially, and share their independent strategies in the course of socializing.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#139

Post by brandonmenc »

bradleybuda wrote: post #69
CydeWeys wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim I was responding to was that people should be able to do "whatever they want" with their properties, which encompasses a lot more than just leaving them vacant. But to answer your specific question, the most obvious negative externality is increased rents for other people, because an apartment that could be being rented out (increasing supply) isn't being rented out. Having lots of vacant residences also po…

Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware? By not selling your things, you are making those things more expensive for everyone else. Therefore, you are creating a negative externality by not selling your things, and storing unused property in your garage and basement should be illegal. What you are describing is not an “externality” in the way that…

> Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware?

Can you create new land?

No. They are completely different things.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#140

Post by trimbo »

president wrote: post #32

San Francisco recently did a similar thing but with commercial storefronts: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Vacancy-glut-in... .

No, this did not pass. All that has passed is that you need to "register" your vacant storefront or be fined for _not registering_.

https://hoodline.com/2019/03/board-of-supervisors-passes-leg...

Post reply on HN