4 ms·
1) taxing vacant properties: Vancouver started this, although with the intent of keeping out foreign riff raff. Eg, there may be loopholes for the longtime BC r
by iso1337 8y ago
1) taxing vacant properties: Vancouver started this, although with the intent of keeping out foreign riff raff. Eg, there may be loopholes for the longtime BC residents who just happen to own a second condo. It will be interesting to see how that plays out over time.
2) then you won’t get any new builds being built. Especially combined with all the regulations on minimum parking sizes, %age of below market units, if you add on permanent rent control, you may well tip over into the point where no developer will risk building because any project is guaranteed to be a loss.
- pmoriarty 8y agoA loss for renters? With rental prices being what they are, we've got a looong way down before that happens.
- iso1337 8y agoIt now costs ~427k/apt to build in SF. https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing-costs-prevent-new-housing-california https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing-cos... I'm not sure what the rule of thumb is for commercial builders, but for real estate investors, a good deal is that 1 months rent = 1% of the price. So.. yeah, I dunno if there's actually that much wiggle room. It may work if it's a nation-wide policy. But let's say you enact this policy in one city and I'm an investor. What's to stop me from just deploying my capital elsewhere?