7 ms·

And even the libertarians should be on board with this tax, because it's correcting a huge negative externality: empty units are bad for a neighborhood. Occupie

• nostromo 10y ago
  Libertarians would argue that this is a problem created by onerous zoning requirements to begin with.
  • andkon 10y ago
    Zoning doesn't make empty units. If you took away all zoning strictures, you'd still be left with the fact that people who buy just as an investment aren't doing much good for a neighbourhood and a city.
    • yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Zoning is what causes Vancouver to have 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Based on this doc, I believe Vancouver (or "Vancouver A", as distinguished from the greater metro area) has about 200k units. http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/PlanningPublications/MV_Housing_Data_Book.pdf http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla... It appears zoning rules, which prevent Vancouver from building up to Brooklyn levels of density (approx 3x as high), is keeping 400k units off the market. In contrast, unoccupied housing is keeping only 10k units off the market. But I'm sure the rich Chinese people are secretly to blame for this too.
      • raldi 10y ago
        You're focusing on yet another externality of vacant units, that they increase the price of housing. I agree with you that this is minor compared to the way that restrictive zoning drives up the price of housing, but what about all the other negative externalities I mentioned in my comment?
      • andkon 10y ago
        No, the fact that the whole lower mainland has 30% the population of NYC is why Vancouver proper has 1/3 the density of Brooklyn. Increasing density in response to rising populations is great. Increasing density in response to rising investor demand is what we've done already, and it's why we have incredibly lonely, dead neighbourhoods like Coal Harbour.
      • Tiktaalik 10y ago
        Zoning for higher density doesn't necessarily solve this problem. Creating more supply results in more units that can potentially be purchased as an investment and left empty.
        • yummyfajitas 10y ago
          Housing is a good investment because it's illegal to make more of it. This makes the price of existing stock go up. If you legalized the production of housing that would no longer be true.
        • Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
          You're arguing that vastly increasing supply will not lower house prices?
          • Tiktaalik 10y ago
            Not at all. Adding more supply is definitely part of the solution. The problem is that adding supply takes time, there are physical limits to the rate at which supply can be added, and the level of demand is unknown. This means it's hard to know when a supply only solution will result in decreased prices and it can take a long time. (Vancouver is not SF, it adds plenty of supply and yet there is still housing shortages and high prices) If you want to fix the problem quickly, policies that increase supply and limit speculative demand will achieve results faster.
            • Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
              The problem isn't going to be fixed any quicker than the time it takes for supply to be increased.
    • snrplfth 10y ago
      The logic is that zoning makes for a housing shortage, which means it's profitable simply to hold on to properties without renting them, because the rent would be such a small portion of the investment gains. If supply increased, and moderated the price increases, then people would rent out more because they wouldn't be seeing huge year-on-year home value increases.
      • andkon 10y ago
        That's definitely an alternative response. Here, we've decided that we should instead cut investors' demand of housing, rather than increasing supply proportionately in response to investor demand. Like raldi says above, it's an approach that's a little more sensitive to the fact that we have to live in the hollow feeling city that an investor class can make.
        • snrplfth 10y ago
          I understand the response, certainly. But I don't think it's going to make housing (rental or ownership) substantially more available or cheaper in Vancouver - it'll just shuffle a few people around. And rich people don't just evaporate because you limit housing supply; they can arbitrage their way around most of these limits pretty easily.
    • gravypod 10y ago
      Zoning is the cause of high housing prices. This is only an issue because there aren't enough houses to meet the demand. Zoning laws are artificial restriction to prevent deflation of home values. They also prevent people from building what has been dubbed as "tiny homes" that would allow poorer people to provide a substantial improvement to their living conditions. That is where this issue stems from. The inability to a) provide for yourself reasonable living accommodations, and b) the surprisingly huge spike in prices of homes due to the lack of homes that are required. This is what a libertarian believes (disclosure: I'm a libertarian).
      • linkregister 10y ago
        I think in the absence of zoning, the affected neighborhoods would have HOAs by contract limiting building freedom. What's the difference as to whether the contract is imposed by the local government or a private council that is attached to the property?
        • snrplfth 10y ago
          The problem is that there's no effective way with (currently constituted) zoning law to 'trade' the externalities of density. You can't compensate your neighbours for shadows or traffic or other impacts in exchange for being able to build larger. So the choice faced by most residents is: 1) Acquiesce to high-density development, and receive zero compensation, or 2) Fight high-density development, and probably get zoning laws imposed at minimal personal cost. You can see why this setup incentivizes people to push hard for "static neighbourhood" zoning law.
          • mjevans 10y ago
            Being near a city core you should EXPECT high density development. Being near a satellite nexus area of such a city, you should expect medium density development around the nexus of civic infrastructure. Japan got how to do urban planning correct.
            • 10y ago
• dmix 10y ago
  None of those sound like particularly libertarian-centric issues. A government fine regarding how a persons decide to use their private property sounds quite anti-libertarian to me.
  • civilian 10y ago
    If you're a principles-first libertarian, then yes it's anti-libertarian. But if you're a "let's use the market and data to solve problems efficiently" kind of libertarian, then this is a nice solution.
    • billions 10y ago
      Libertarian means do what you want as long as you're not hurting others. Gary Johnson ran on the platform of 'keep the government out of our pocketbook and out of our bedroom'. Not sure how taxing home use aligns with that.
      • fucking_tragedy 10y ago
        > Libertarian means do what you want as long as you're not hurting others. People are doing what they want and it's being argued that it's hurting others. That said, I've never seen a libertarian push for anything other than leaving it up to the market, even in the face of negative externalities.
    • ryanwaggoner 10y ago
      Umm, I don't see a market here. I see the government charging a fine for behavior they find objectionable. If the government decides that you shouldn't drive more than 55 mph and they catch you doing that and write you a $100 ticket, you haven't participated in a market transaction in any way.
• DINKDINK 10y ago
  >even the libertarians should be on board with this tax No, Libertarians would not support this. The reason why there are empty properties is that there are capital controls so severe that it's more lucrative to buy a house (and not rent it) as a store of value than a currency/stock/precious asset (gold,bitcoin etc). A law -- which didn't account for the second-order detriments -- created this perversion in the market. Adding another law -- which again won't account for the second-order detriments -- is not going to fix it. Less is more, when it comes to economic law.
  • ubernostrum 10y ago
    OK, so how can the voters of Vancouver change the laws of China?
    • ecopoesis 10y ago
      Tanks and bombs.
      • ubernostrum 10y ago
        So... the libertarian option is to initiate the use of force?
    • mjevans 10y ago
      Trade relations treaties.
    • orthecreedence 10y ago
      Just abolish all laws and government and let the market, you know, figure it out.
    • kspaans 10y ago
      Enact a Land Value Tax. In a squeezed market like Vancouver most of the value in houses is the plot of land underneath them, not the "bricks & mortar". By taxing the value of the land rather than the property on top of it you won't penalize people for renovating or knocking down an old building and replacing it with a newer one. Hopefully the tax is high enough to put off speculators and bring prices to a more reasonable level (because massive swings in land value of 20% per year will increase the tax burden).
• MichaelBurge 10y ago
  If the picture is accurate, it looks like they're mostly worried about single-family homes. The investment market mostly values properties based on how much money they can make, so it's far more rational. Single-family homes aren't part of the investment market, and only exist in a housing supply shortage due to restrictive zoning laws. I don't know enough about Canada to say why they have restrictive zoning laws. In the US, it's mostly government-backed mortgage programs and covert racism. I don't care how rich the Chinese are; those properties would be demolished, rebuilt as apartments, and rented if it were allowed. Because the value of the property is directly proportional to its expected profit. It's only when the government disconnects the two that you ignore the rental profit. The Chinese government's currency controls probably don't help, either: The Chinese are willing to lose money as long as it's free from their government's currency controls. Does Canada offer government-backed loans that are available to foreigners?
  • andkon 10y ago
    I personally am worried not about single family homes, but about maybe one day getting to own a condo. That'd be cool. But new tiny units start at $600,000. But what happens if you just chop down SFH and rebuild with higher density, and you don't also put restrictions on investing in the new units? You just end up with the problem we have now. We're building tons. Our local GDP is largely based around real estate. Not that we don't have a NIMBY problem — but there's only so much building you can do before you look around and feel like you just built more empty houses for people who don't live here.
    • MichaelBurge 10y ago
      You should always ask for a copy of the HOA bylaws before buying a condo. You might prefer to pay extra to discourage empty investors, and that could certainly be written in. Even without that, you might also ask how many of the other buyers are pure investors or otherwise ask people how they like it there. Though, it seems like a condominium complex that is 50% empty would give you a greater density of neighbors than a SFH suburb that is 50% empty. And you can get the Chinese to pay for your new roof, to boot. Somehow I doubt even the Chinese have enough money to turn a high-density city into a scene from 28 Days Later, though.
• pashapiro 10y ago
  I'll allow that ignoring or abandoning private property is generally the measuring stick that libertarians use to justify seizing it, but as others have said, if the real estate market in Vancouver were less regulated, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.
• mahyarm 10y ago
  If somewhere like SF will adopt it although, they will have to make their rent control at least follow inflation. Sub inflation %0.5 rental limit increases are a bit crazy. Even %2/yr is relatively low.