91–100 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More likely it's worth it to them to keep rates high and limit supply.
So all the landlords in Bercelona conspired to do this somehow?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTA "The problems the fines are intended to combat began in 2007, when the financial crisis brought an epidemic of foreclosures on homes across Spain. After a nationwide wave of repossessions, banks found themselves the owners of newly vast portfolios of housing whose tenants had been evicted. Put off by the cost of renovations and wary of their potential obligations to rental tenants as landlords, many banks simply…
So isn’t the more salient point here that tenants’ rights are apparently so strong here that the owners would rather leave the properties vacant (and lose money) than rent them out to a new tenant? Perhaps if they would remove some of the more pernicious and abused “rights” for tenants, more property owners would put their property up for rent?
Banks wouldn't have these properties at all if they hadn't screwed the pooch financially with mortages. I find it offensive that after taking people's homes and properties, an immense transfer of wealth to them, they should allow them to sit empty, in order to turn a better profit on the misery they helped cause.
It sounds nice, but the real question is why are people letting these building sit empty. There is probably a good reason for it. Maybe some renter protection laws that went too far?
Probably makes more sense for these companies to reduce supply and rent for a higher price than have to rent or provide a lower price to renters. Speaks more to the market structure and power of both sides here.
The real reason is to economically disencentive land speculators holding uninhabitable land, who were planning on flipping it without developing it after several years.
It sounds nice, but the real question is why are people letting these building sit empty. There is probably a good reason for it. Maybe some renter protection laws that went too far?
* Real estate investors can borrow against the long term income of their properties, and often value that above the short term rents. They also tend to be highly leveraged to build the next project. This creates situations where high vacancies and poor returns are worthwhile because they can pretend they'll fill the building at their price eventually, and therefore borrow against the building as though it would return that price X all their units X however many years.
* A lot of people seem to think (I haven't dug into the true scale of this) that enormous amounts of money from China is being parked in Western real estate as some sort of protection against seizure by the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all the landlords in Bercelona conspired to do this somehow?
Right, it seems like this only works if they conspire or if there are large property holders. Maybe it’s the latter? If I own two houses and left one empty it certainly wouldn’t change the total supply enough to comeback out ahead.
The real reason buildings would stay vacant is either ownership attempting to charge above market for rent, or land speculators who are looking to hold and flip, without developing it enough so it can be used in the meantime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unconstrained property ownership has consequences. As a society you have to understand and decide how much you want to regulate how markets and limited resources can benefit some and harm others. 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…
Especially in constrained areas like Barcelona (or urban areas in the U.S.), property ownership is a monopoly, so it has market repercussions. Buying up units and then refusing to rent them out (or have anyone occupy them) can be viewed as interfering with the local market. These are micro markets that are price sensitive to interference. If you are a landlord, you need to rent the place out at the current market pri…
Just to put it in a US perspective, Barcelona as a whole has 10% higher population density than Brooklyn (41,000/sq mi vs 37,137/sq mi).
People should be able to do whatever they want with their properties
Until then, all real estate comes with strings attached.
It sounds nice, but the real question is why are people letting these building sit empty. There is probably a good reason for it. Maybe some renter protection laws that went too far?
People should be able to do whatever they want with their properties
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware? By not selling your things, you are making those things more expensive for everyone else. Therefore, you are creating a negative externality by not selling your things, and storing unused property in your garage and basement should be illegal. What you are describing is not an “externality” in the way that…
People need homes to live. Shelter is essential in the way very few things are.