Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 332 posts

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#51

Post by cycrutchfield »

CydeWeys wrote: post #48
Pirolita wrote: post #18

People should be able to do whatever they want with their properties

That's not true in the modern world and never has been. There's plenty of things you can't do with your property, and indeed the total universe of what you can do is much smaller than the universe of what you cannot do. Cities are (necessarily) very tightly regulated, because when people and property are packed in so tightly together the possibilities for negative externalities are severe. It's important to optimize…

What are the negative externalities associated with me leaving my house empty vs. me living in it? Bear in mind that any perceived shortage of housing in the local area is most likely artificial in nature because of NIMBY policies that I did not vote for.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#52

Post by DrJokepu »

kradroy wrote: post #10
Scoundreller wrote: post #2

Why is it a fine? Why not a tax? Taxing unused spaces sitting idle makes a lot more sense than income (ie: people’s work).

In the US fines are not tax deductible, so that's one fiscal difference between taxes and fines. I have no idea if Spain considers fines to be tax deductible or not.

On the other hand, in the United States the Eighth Amendment forbids imposing excessive fines, and a very good argument could be made that some of these fines could be classified as “excessive”.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#54

Post by Scoundreller »

president wrote: post #32

San Francisco recently did a similar thing but with commercial storefronts: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Vacancy-glut-in... .

And Toronto got rid of their vacant commercial & industrial property rebate.

I think they didn’t go far enough.

https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/property-taxes-util...

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#55

Post by repsilat »

CydeWeys wrote: post #40
pbiggar wrote: post #35

Does anyone know why is it that seemingly every major city is having an affordability crisis at the same time?

Is this new? Was the same thing not happening in, say, any other urban boom time, like the mid 1920s? I think there's always going to be a flux of people who aren't "keeping up" with the increase in costs as much as others are, and having to drop out of the most expensive areas as a result. and likewise, there's people from the rest of the country who are improving their situation and can move up to the "big time".

Price to income ratios have indeed gotten worse in many places. I don't know how widespread that effect is, though.

I put it down to a combination of consistently low interest rates (both in the short term and in the long-term trend), coupled with cumulatively worsening construction deficits. Wouldn't be surprised if not all of that withstood comparison with actual data, though.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#56

Post by lsiebert »

Pirolita wrote: post #18

People should be able to do whatever they want with their properties

No, they shouldn't. There are externalities that effect others, and the free market.

For example, you don't want people doing things that poison groundwater for the neighbors, right?

Anyway, letting property sit idle benefits the landowner but causes issues for neighbors, local government and the free market. It means businesses in those locations get less customers, and local governments less sales tax. If the property is not cared for, there can be additional issues that lower the value of other's homes.

It causes rental prices and home prices for buyers to inflate because of the market distortion, leading to boom bust real estate problems.

Boom and bust effects homesellers and homebuyers, but also, given how often property tax plays a role in government budgets, dramatically affects local and state revenue, (and federal revenue in countries with a federal property tax).

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#57

Post by CydeWeys »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #51
CydeWeys wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true in the modern world and never has been. There's plenty of things you can't do with your property, and indeed the total universe of what you can do is much smaller than the universe of what you cannot do. Cities are (necessarily) very tightly regulated, because when people and property are packed in so tightly together the possibilities for negative externalities are severe. It's important to optimize…

What are the negative externalities associated with me leaving my house empty vs. me living in it? Bear in mind that any perceived shortage of housing in the local area is most likely artificial in nature because of NIMBY policies that I did not vote for.

The claim I was responding to was that people should be able to do "whatever they want" with their properties, which encompasses a lot more than just leaving them vacant.

But to answer your specific question, the most obvious negative externality is increased rents for other people, because an apartment that could be being rented out (increasing supply) isn't being rented out.

Having lots of vacant residences also potentially increases crime, is bad for neighborhood maintenance (we have a huge problem here in NYC of sidewalks not being shoveled in front of vacant properties when it snows), it gives pests a potential home, and increases the potential to damage surrounding residences. Vacant residences are more likely to fall under disrepair and then catch on fire or start leaks, which can damage nearby or underneath residences. If you're touching one then it's bad for your heating/AC bills, because your heat/cold is sapping through the walls into the un-conditioned apartment. Even just simple things like having fewer eyes to watch out for crime and call the police if a burglar or robber is spotted.

There's a huge host of problems associated with having long-term vacant residences in your neighborhood.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#58

Post by CydeWeys »

repsilat wrote: post #55
CydeWeys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this new? Was the same thing not happening in, say, any other urban boom time, like the mid 1920s? I think there's always going to be a flux of people who aren't "keeping up" with the increase in costs as much as others are, and having to drop out of the most expensive areas as a result. and likewise, there's people from the rest of the country who are improving their situation and can move up to the "big time".

Price to income ratios have indeed gotten worse in many places. I don't know how widespread that effect is, though. I put it down to a combination of consistently low interest rates (both in the short term and in the long-term trend), coupled with cumulatively worsening construction deficits. Wouldn't be surprised if not all of that withstood comparison with actual data, though.

But surely this isn't the first time they've gotten worse, right? They've increased many previous times in many previous places throughout history, right?

I really don't think there's anything that special about what we're going through right now. I'm sure the Romans were complaining about rising prices in Rome as the city filled up and real estate became scarce.

Re: Barcelona Fines Landlords Who Let Buildings Sit Empty

#59

Post by toomanybeersies »

Pirolita wrote: post #18

People should be able to do whatever they want with their properties

Except that properties are part of a larger neighbourhood and a city.

What one person does with a property affects their neighbours. This is the theory of why you are not allowed to open liquor stores next to schools.

Post reply on HN