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

Post by gausswho » Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 4:57 AM UTC

Izikiel43 wrote: post #78

71a54xd wrote: post #53

Regardless 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 "na…

It's their property, they are free to use it (or not) as they see fit. The solution for all this issues on lack of housing is easy, let people build more. SF is famous for its Kafkaesque regulations and zoning for building. Remove them, let apartment buildings be built everywhere, and the problem will solve itself.

Post by yonran » Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 5:28 AM UTC

quantified wrote: post #130

yonran wrote: post #77

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 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…

Wouldn't renting the unit out be economic activity (rent flows to landlord, household does house things, definitely economic)? Seems to discourage the lack thereof.

Post by tomcam » Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 6:12 AM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #106

tomcam wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're now making a weird insinuation... Not sure how. I am trying to understand your thinking. But the phrase "housing is a fundamental human need" can use some explication. What's the maximum for "at least some"? (Roughly, not trying to pin you down to a particular number.)

Pretty much all my tax policies boil down to getting rid of super corrupt breaks to energy and ag, and a 110% tax on income over 10 million, and Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax. Confident we can build some baller cribs on that kind of cheddar.

Post by arretevad » Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 6:22 AM UTC

voisin wrote: post #83

jasonpeacock wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. There is plenty the landlord can control. What this tax does is say the landlord can't just sit on empty properties without penalty. Heck, the landlord could even work collectively with society to make the area viable for tenants!

> The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. The Landlord occupying vast swathes of vacant space in its portfolio is the same as it being vacant. You realize landlords don’t have 1 employee for every employee it’s tenant has, right? That doesn’t scale. Selling just transfers the issue to someone else. Making the property more appealing isn’t as…

Post by AdrianB1 » Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 8:32 AM UTC

fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: post #86

AdrianB1 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the judicial branch has the role to check that democracy does not become mob rule. There are some basic rights and liberties, but there are others not clear written on paper, but still not removable by vote.

Taxes on land and personal property in the US date back to colonial times. And tax policy often distinguishes between property utilized in different ways (eg. personal vs. business). I doubt you’d convince a judge that a tax that varies based on whether property is unused impinges on some fundamental right in a materially different way.