Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty • Hacker News Board

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#311

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

toast0 wrote: post #231

CydeWeys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense because you didn't pay federal taxes on that amount last year. Ideally your withholding should have been perfect last year and your refund would have been $0, and then you would have paid the federal tax amount on it last year. Relatedly, I got a ~$5k state refund last year and I'm not paying additional federal tax on it this year because the SALT deductions are now gone under Trump's tax changes, so m…

Into the weeds a bit here, but if you deducted your payments to the state in 2017 on your federal 2017 tax return (filed in 2018), and you got a refund from the state in 2018, you should be entering that on your federal 2018 tax return. Since you won't be deducing SALT in 2018, any state refund in 2019 wouldn't be reportable for federal tax year 2019. If this were otherwise, people would have purposefully massively o…

Yup. I happen to be in an AMT situation where the state refund from last year isn't taxable this year, but it might still be for others as you point out.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#312

Post by ASalazarMX » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #275

mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

In the uk to get round this sort of tax its common for buildings to have their roof removed.

Doesn't that ruin the building? It rains a lot there.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#313

Post by johnchristopher » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

> Many squatters are ideologically driven and improve the neighbourhoods they're squatting in.

Says who ? Not that I don't believe you or that I believe it's false but are there more than one account of that happening ?

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#314

Post by supernova87a » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #243

supernova87a wrote: post #196

I'm curious about the legal grounds for such a tax or fine. If local zoning already governs what may be built or operated on a property, what principle allows a government to levy fines for lack of use of a property that has been built and maintained to the required zoning? (if to all other requirements, the property is not derelict, in poor condition, a blight or public nuisance?) I didn't think that you could be co…

I suppose if local zoning laws require a property to be used for residential purposes then not using it for residential purposes would be breaking the law. Leaving a property empty to wait for price appreciation is clearly not residential use.

That's such a gross misinterpretation of the words "use" and "purposes" in the zoning code that it's not worth replying further.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#315

Post by supernova87a » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #199

supernova87a wrote: post #196

I'm curious about the legal grounds for such a tax or fine. If local zoning already governs what may be built or operated on a property, what principle allows a government to levy fines for lack of use of a property that has been built and maintained to the required zoning? (if to all other requirements, the property is not derelict, in poor condition, a blight or public nuisance?) I didn't think that you could be co…

The article addresses that: "The law the city is using, which gives it scope to fine negligent landlords after two years of leaving a property vacant, has in fact been in place since 2007 (before Colau’s election) but wasn’t implemented until during her tenure." If a law's enacted by voters, and no law of a higher political body contradicts it, then that's what the government is allowed to do.

Well, that's basically what I'm interested in. Whether this law would stand if challenged with a constitutional due process (or other appropriate) claim.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#316

Post by dontbenebby » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #242

In Amsterdam, any property that has been empty for over a year can be legally squatted, and once in, legal squatters may be hard to get out. For this reason, landlords tend to rent out their empty properties cheaply as "anti-kraak" (anti-squat), on the condition that the tenant moves out when the landlord needs the property again. This is quite popular for students because you often get a ridiculous amount of space f…

How much notice does the landlord need to give? It would suck to get evicted mid-semester.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#317

Post by cycrutchfield » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 8:04 PM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #282

nradov wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks lost money on most of those foreclosures, to the extent that some banks failed and others had to be recapitalized. It wasn't a transfer of wealth to them.

Losing money doesn't mean losing the underlying property. There were certainly some losers, but the vast majority of them were the people who lost their house, not the banks which foreclosed on them.

People that lost their house overpaid for real estate that they could not afford. It’s strange that you seem to assume that overburdened debtors are saints while overextended creditors are devils. Both parties made mistakes they should not have made, and both parties suffered rightly as a result.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#318

Post by jonfw » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

forkLding wrote: post #185

jonfw wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt that landlords have conspired like this. Not sure what monopoly legislation looks like in Europe but I doubt this behavior would be legal. The real reason is to economically disencentive land speculators holding uninhabitable land, who were planning on flipping it without developing it after several years.

Don't think it's collusion, it is probably just the reality of things. I've noted that my original comment made it sound like this was insidious collusion but what I mean is that it is likely just the stark reality.

If there is no market collusion or abuse of monopoly, than there is absolutely no way it makes economic sense to withhold properties from the market to inflate the market. If you have a minority market share you won't be able to make up for the lost revenue, because the majority of the rent inflation is just going to be recognized by the other parties.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#319

Post by bsanr2 » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 9:29 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #217

bsanr2 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt property ownership is concentrated enough for this to be possible. Tacit collusion can work with a duopoly but by the time you get to five participants in a market it doesn’t work unless cartel agreements are legally enforceable and I doubt there are less than 5,000 residential property owners in Barcelona.

I think you're missing the point. It's not collusion, it's simple socialization. But it's inherent in the station of being a property owner to want to extract as much out of one's property as possible, and through this simple socializing, ideas about what most effectively achieves that aim can spread through the networks of interested parties while largely remaining inside of them.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#320

Post by fauigerzigerk » Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #314

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose if local zoning laws require a property to be used for residential purposes then not using it for residential purposes would be breaking the law. Leaving a property empty to wait for price appreciation is clearly not residential use.

That's such a gross misinterpretation of the words "use" and "purposes" in the zoning code that it's not worth replying further.

It may well be a misinterpretation of Barcelona's zoning code. Apologies if I gave you the impression that I was familiar with that law.

What I'm saying is that it would make sense to me if a zoning code (or other regulations) were to include a requirement to actually use the land/property for the designated purpose (if possible) or swiftly sell it to someone who will. That wouldn't compell anyone to be a landlord.

In my view, such a rule would be completely consistent with the usual meaning of the words "use" and "purpose" and it would be consistent with the fine.