San Francisco has nearly five empty homes per homeless resident

Post by refurb » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #166

refurb wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeal it for everything. Just do what Texas does and allow deferred property tax payments for when the owner dies or sells. Why should we be giving tax breaks to people who have seen incredible appreciation of their homes. Those are the last people who should be getting tax breaks.

Texas also has a value increase cap for owner-occupied residences, though not as generous (10% per assessment, since the state uses three-year assessment periods). > Why should we be giving tax breaks to people who have seen incredible appreciation of their homes. Those are the last people who should be getting tax breaks. It's about not forcing people to move because he area they live in appreciates suddenly. Basica…

Post by dmitrygr » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

Post by huebomont » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 10:06 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #116

flaque wrote: post #45

Many of these homes probably aren’t “empty” in the sense that someone’s just holding on to them long term. This article is citing the vacancy rate, which includes rentals where someone left and the landlord is trying to find a new tenant. Any city will have some % of empty rentals, if it didn’t, no one would ever move around. According to the US Census, [1] San Francisco’s vacancy rate is 5.4%, New York’s is 4.5%, an…

> build more housing and put them in it This is exactly what they want. Their contention is that SB50 doesn't place enough emphasis on affordability, so developers will mostly build market-rate housing. If you build enough market rate housing, the prices do eventually come down, but that takes a while to happen. During that time, a lot of people can lose their homes, especially since lower-income areas can be the mos…

Post by selrumingo » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #155

flaque wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that SB50 will not fix the immediate homelessness problem; though I disagree with their belief you can't pass SB50 until it also has affordable housing units. You can have multiple bills, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot just because we have only a solution to one part of the problem.

In principle I agree with you, but in practice what often happens is that it takes a herculean effort to pass any bill at all, and politicians are more inclined to declare victory than to pass a follow-up bill. Even if they pass a follow-up bill, it may take until the next legislative session, which could mean a huge delay. This creates incentives to get the bill modified before passage.

Post by theklr » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #155

flaque wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that SB50 will not fix the immediate homelessness problem; though I disagree with their belief you can't pass SB50 until it also has affordable housing units. You can have multiple bills, we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot just because we have only a solution to one part of the problem.

In principle I agree with you, but in practice what often happens is that it takes a herculean effort to pass any bill at all, and politicians are more inclined to declare victory than to pass a follow-up bill. Even if they pass a follow-up bill, it may take until the next legislative session, which could mean a huge delay. This creates incentives to get the bill modified before passage.