61–70 of 332 posts
San Francisco recently did a similar thing but with commercial storefronts: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Vacancy-glut-in... .
That is just a proposal, right? Did it pass? Last I heard, London Breed was looking at other avenues to tackle the problem (reducing bureaucracy, expanding multi-use space allowances, etc.)
It’s hard to find information about that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fines seem to be more flexible in their enforcement and cancellation, possibly as negotiation tactics. The label, as opposed to 'tax', comes with the idea of punishment and can more logically be increased to higher levels in ways not possible if considered a cost of doing business.
Relatedly, it'd be interesting to see a tax with a built-in ratcheting up effect each year. Imagine if you had a tax that doubled each year a property remained vacant -- that'd be similar to how they're using these fines.
The money gets split amongst the non-tax paying teams, with the idea of balancing competition between wealthier teams and poorer teams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about pooled investment funds? Are they "people" who should be able to do whatever they want with their properties?
Why does it matter what sort of entity owns a piece of property? They pay property taxes, they should get to do what they want with their property.
There is clear social harm to have cities filled with empty homes while there are people who want homes and can't afford to buy any on the market or are forced to commute long distances.
Using real estate to store money and other speculation does harm to people who want to participate in the market to actually use the limited fundamentally necessary resource.
It makes good sense for property owners who actively use their property themselves to have more rights than those who seek to profit from market conditions or others' use.
Having paid taxes is a weak justification for any freedom.
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.
https://squattinglondon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/ominous-...
and it seems obvious to me why that's bad and public policy should not promote it.
As a public policy, along the lines of taxing vacant properties, we could also simply permit any vacant or unused property to be lived in and used by anyone who came along.
Does anyone know why is it that seemingly every major city is having an affordability crisis at the same time?
In Spain at least a lot of it is attributed to AirBNB.
Just to give you an example, when i moved in my current condo back in 2017 my rent was $1700/month. 2 years in and my landlord wants to suddenly "move back in" and now the rental price for similar units are around $2200/month. I find it hilarious top brass of Y Combinator talk about things like UBI and rest and meanwhile Airbnb actively tries to screw over the locals when it comes to renting a place and won't even assist local government in enforcing the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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”.
San Francisco recently did a similar thing but with commercial storefronts: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Vacancy-glut-in... .
Quote from [0]:
Each year, one owner of residential property in Vancouver is required to submit a property status declaration to determine if their property is subject to the tax.
Properties deemed empty will be subject to a tax of 1% of the property’s 2018 assessed taxable value.
Most homes will not be subject to the tax, as it does not apply to principal residences or homes rented for at least six months of the year; however, all homeowners are required to submit a declaration.
Net revenues from the Empty Homes Tax will be reinvested into affordable housing initiatives.
End quote
[0] https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 po…
What you are describing is not an “externality” in the way that economists use that term.
