141–150 of 173 posts
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:…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They are free to keep or sell as the populace around them votes how best their land is used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yes, the vacancy tax encourages economic activity, which is the opposite of the income tax which has a side-effect of reducing economic activity. Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed. According to the plaintiffs, the problem with the vacancy tax is that the city is not supposed to force homeowners into the business of renting that they do not want (Ellis Act https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_d…
I feel like everyone replying with some version of "well actually taxes do disincentivize blah blah blah" is responding to someone else. Taxation is not compulsion. I'll say it as many times as I have to.
> It is similar to the Obamacare individual mandate, which also forced people to enter the marketplace
Here it is again. Taxing someone if they don't do something is not forcing them to do that thing. The case you cite says so! National affirmed Federal power to tax behavior or non behavior. It supports, rather than undercuts my argument.
> Another reason that camgunz’s analogy is flawed.
My point with taxes is that oftentimes the main goal is to raise revenue or address an externality. That's actually what the income tax does and what this tax does as well. The income tax (and payroll taxes) addresses income inequality and uses the proceeds to build a social safety net. SFGate notes that the vacancy tax in Vancouver helped to lower vacancy rates and funds affordable housing initiatives. Also Vancouver's vacancy rate is greater than zero! Looks like no one's being forced to do anything.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/how-many-vacant-homes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 110% tax on income over 10 million Why not 125% or 200%? Or save even more souls at 500%?
Summer: "You're right!"
Morty: "What! No! I was using ghoulish overkill! Ghoulish overkill Summer!"
How hard is it to fake being occupied? Pay someone a modest amount to live in the unit on paper.
About as hard as any other type of fraud.
> [from elsewhere on the web] ...property owners with at least three units that have been vacant for more than 182 days (six months) will be taxed...
This is not enforceable. It will be dodged by the dishonest and thereby drive compliant, honest landlords out of business.
"“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…
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.
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…
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.
ooooh.... so creepy
"“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.
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…
You're literally whining about your inability to kick someone out of their 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.