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

161–170 of 173 posts

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

#161

Post by HDThoreaun »

yumraj wrote: post #160
HDThoreaun wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Yes you should. Your actions are causing considerable harm to society. It is completely reasonable to use taxes to incentivize actions that improve society. Improperly utilizing high value land is very harmful, we don't have to just sit here and let you do it without consequences.

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

#162

Post by yumraj »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #161
yumraj wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fo…

Yes you should. Your actions are causing considerable harm to society. It is completely reasonable to use taxes to incentivize actions that improve society. Improperly utilizing high value land is very harmful, we don't have to just sit here and let you do it without consequences.

Based on this argument, perhaps we should eliminate private ownership of all homes. That will bring maximum benefit to the society, no?

Wait, I think communist countries already tried that and failed.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

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

#163

Post by rgifford »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #146
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…

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

I don't own multifamily property in SF, so I'm not whining about my ability to do anything.

When tenants rights are restrictive enough property owners view tenants as a liability and that sets up perverse incentives that cause inefficient markets and underdevelopment. Occupied multifamily properties sell at steep discounts compared to their vacant counterparts. Property owners price in the potential longterm loss of use caused by a tenant. Do we want to heavily incentivize property owners to sell their properties without tenants? Do we want a housing market where multifamily properties sell for the same amount as much smaller single family homes? Do we want a development market where subdividing property is inadvisable and actually lowers property value?

At the end of the day, everyone deserves dignity. Part of that means acknowledging property owners take significant risk tenants do not and as such deserve fair use of their property. That means owners need to be able to give notice to end a tenancy amicably without eviction -- maybe that required notice is measured in years. That's plenty of time for any tenant to find another place. It means we need to stop conflating romantic ideals of "home" with actual ownership. If tenants watched themselves priced out over a decade, they're going to have a hard time. City programs should provide safety nets there, but it isn't their landlords burden to take carry them like a dependent. Tenancy is a very simple proposition: renters don't have to come up with downpayment, if the city goes to shit they can leave in a month, if the foundation gets water damage or an electrical fire breaks out they have no liability, their monthly payment is significantly less than a comparable mortgage payment. Tenants trade optionality for equity. As a tenant I never lost a single night of sleep worrying about electrical fires or new sewage pipes or the heater going out. I'd never have the gall to squat on a place for 10 years while paying inflation adjusted rent (far under market rate) and come out the other side with my hand held out for a tenant buy out. I would be absolutely ashamed of myself as a tenant in such a situation. If I'm being honest, I suppose I'd still do it and find ways to justify it. I'd tell myself it was after all "my home" and the landlord had more than one house so it was only fair. The story is just all too common in SF.

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

#164

Post by HDThoreaun »

yumraj wrote: post #162
HDThoreaun wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you should. Your actions are causing considerable harm to society. It is completely reasonable to use taxes to incentivize actions that improve society. Improperly utilizing high value land is very harmful, we don't have to just sit here and let you do it without consequences.

Based on this argument, perhaps we should eliminate private ownership of all homes. That will bring maximum benefit to the society, no? Wait, I think communist countries already tried that and failed. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

Private ownership is immensely beneficial to society as it encourages investment. Incentives work.

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

#165

Post by jeezfrk »

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…

Investors are investing. You own it? The values go down too. That's how it works.

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

#166

Post by yumraj »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #164
yumraj wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this argument, perhaps we should eliminate private ownership of all homes. That will bring maximum benefit to the society, no? Wait, I think communist countries already tried that and failed. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

Private ownership is immensely beneficial to society as it encourages investment. Incentives work.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my comment above..

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

#167

Post by codemac »

orwin wrote: post #89
codemac wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... they already have those on housing. No one taxes you more or less because of how frequently you use your boat, or if you rent your boat to others, etc.

They should just make a law to decrease taxes on primary house by 75%, on secondary houses by 50%, then augment the taxation by 400%. I understand having a vacation/family home (not in crowded cities however), but having more than one and leaving it empty just to raise the price of similar unit feel really scammy to me.

> but having more than one and leaving it empty just to raise the price of a similar unit

Is there a dearth of this happening? SF vacancy rates are roughly the same as they are across the country.

Also, from a balance sheet standpoint: if you raise the rent of a similar unit, then the rent lost on your empty unit goes up. You're actually losing more money (potential rent - rent received).

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

#168

Post by Gigachad »

AndyMcConachie wrote: post #146
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…

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

Yep, If you don’t want to manage a rental, don’t own one. If later you need 2 properties instead of 1 + 1 rental, sell the duplex and buy somewhere else.

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

#169

Post by Gigachad »

db48x wrote: post #129
schrodinger wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing is a little more of a critical need for people than graphics cards…

That’s irrelevant. We’re considering here how the market prices them, not what they are used for or how important they are.

It’s hardly irrelevant. Proved by the fact the people voted for a vacancy tax and not an unused GPU tax.

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

#170

Post by db48x »

Gigachad wrote: post #169
db48x wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s irrelevant. We’re considering here how the market prices them, not what they are used for or how important they are.

It’s hardly irrelevant. Proved by the fact the people voted for a vacancy tax and not an unused GPU tax.

/me facepalms

That’s circular. This discussion of GPUs started when tomcam asked why a tax on unused housing was OK, and whether or not it could be extended to a tax on unused GPUs.

In particular, a vacancy tax seems to force people to rent out property rather than merely posses it. Can the same law be used to force people to enter into other rental agreements? I have a bunch of old computer parts, including motherboards, cpus, and gpus sitting around unused. I dare say that I could build two or three working computers out of them. Should I be taxed for owning these unused computers?

I have a few thousand books that I’m not currently reading, what about them? Should we tax people for having more books than they can carry? What about your bed, which is currently going unused approximately 16 hours out of the day? Can the government one day force you to rent that out too? Hot bunking would certainly “solve” any housing problem a city might face. Where is the distinction?

Simply stating that no law has been passed to force you to rent out your unused GPUs is not stating a guiding principle, because that’s merely a matter of time.

Post reply on HN