5 ms·

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

jacques_chester 8y ago
People should also be able to enjoy the ownership and use of their own properties, without negative externalities from neighbours. Property rights are not a mere question of geometry.
Daishiman 8y ago
This is so wrong it's not even within the ballpark of the discussion.
- waymon 8y ago
  I need to say this about ten times a day to myself.
- dang 8y ago
  Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
colechristensen 8y ago
What about pooled investment funds? Are they "people" who should be able to do whatever they want with their properties?
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  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.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    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 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.
    - rsj_hn 8y ago
      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 price. If you do not want to do that, you can sell the property and get out of the landlord business. Just squatting on it and leaving it empty/boarded up distorts the local property market and should be heavily taxed to discourage absentee landlords from interfering with local markets.
      - ciceryadam 8y ago
        Agreed. 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).
    - momofarm 8y ago
      I don't know how its done in US or other countries. But in my country (some small island in west side of Pacific Ocean), some properties just left empty for very long time since no one can afford that piece of thing. At night, you walk through that place, its quiet like abandon for very long time, and there won't be any retail stores / business nearby since only ghosts and wondering dogs/cats will be there. But I also wondering, if the city mayor decided to make this bill work, he need the local city council pass the bill, will this make him lose in next year's election?
CydeWeys 8y ago
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 the very limited space in a way that maximizes its good for as many people as possible. You have a lot more leeway to do whatever you want way out in the country if that's what you're looking for, but you should never expect that in a dense city, because you won't find it anywhere.
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  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.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    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.
kevinh 8y ago
Should I be able to dump toxic waste in a river that runs through my property?
lsiebert 8y ago
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).
- refurb 8y ago
  Problem is, every “tweak” of the market causes ramifications, often unintended. A great example is rent control. Sure it helps current tenants, but it distorts the rental market such that it disincentivizes putting new homes on the market, and the exact opposite of what you want - higher rents.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    Higher rents and cheaper houses because they are being sold to the people who want to live in them rather than to someone who already has 5 houses.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Or you know, you could just build more housing.
      - baroffoos 8y ago
        The people hoarding empty houses will do anything they can to block this because it drops the value of their houses which they only own to sell at a higher price later
toomanybeersies 8y ago
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.
int_19h 8y ago
Sure, as soon as you have a true allodial title for one. Until then, all real estate comes with strings attached.
cabaalis 8y ago
I agree with you on this principle, and when your property does not affect anyone else this right is an absolute. However groups of people who choose to live and work near each other generally decide that they have some say in what can be done, and this usually works out for the greater good.
minikites 8y ago
So I can move in next door to you and run my own small paper mill or hog rendering plant?
Dylan16807 8y ago
If you want to do almost whatever you want, buy a property outside of a city. Or you can just pay to make up for the economic damage your wasted space causes. You're not going to get jailed.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Yeah, this is the simple rejoinder. People have taken their collective property (the city) and added some rules about how you have to behave. I guess it sucks for people that get incorporated against their will or whatever.
baroffoos 8y ago
Then you get issues with the rich from other places using your city as a wealth storage zone and suddenly you have millions of homes empty but no one has anywhere to live so the city dies.
dang 8y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? Especially flamebaity ones; the combination amounts to trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

People should also be able to enjoy the ownership and use of their own properties, without negative externalities from neighbours. Property rights are not a mere question of geometry.

Daishiman 8y ago

This is so wrong it's not even within the ballpark of the discussion.

waymon 8y ago
I need to say this about ten times a day to myself.
dang 8y ago
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

colechristensen 8y ago

What about pooled investment funds? Are they "people" who should be able to do whatever they want with their properties?

cycrutchfield 8y ago
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.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  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 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.
  - rsj_hn 8y ago
    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 price. If you do not want to do that, you can sell the property and get out of the landlord business. Just squatting on it and leaving it empty/boarded up distorts the local property market and should be heavily taxed to discourage absentee landlords from interfering with local markets.
    - ciceryadam 8y ago
      Agreed. 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).
  - momofarm 8y ago
    I don't know how its done in US or other countries. But in my country (some small island in west side of Pacific Ocean), some properties just left empty for very long time since no one can afford that piece of thing. At night, you walk through that place, its quiet like abandon for very long time, and there won't be any retail stores / business nearby since only ghosts and wondering dogs/cats will be there. But I also wondering, if the city mayor decided to make this bill work, he need the local city council pass the bill, will this make him lose in next year's election?

CydeWeys 8y ago

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 the very limited space in a way that maximizes its good for as many people as possible. You have a lot more leeway to do whatever you want way out in the country if that's what you're looking for, but you should never expect that in a dense city, because you won't find it anywhere.

cycrutchfield 8y ago
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.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  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.

kevinh 8y ago

Should I be able to dump toxic waste in a river that runs through my property?

lsiebert 8y ago

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).

refurb 8y ago
Problem is, every “tweak” of the market causes ramifications, often unintended. A great example is rent control. Sure it helps current tenants, but it distorts the rental market such that it disincentivizes putting new homes on the market, and the exact opposite of what you want - higher rents.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Higher rents and cheaper houses because they are being sold to the people who want to live in them rather than to someone who already has 5 houses.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Or you know, you could just build more housing.
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      The people hoarding empty houses will do anything they can to block this because it drops the value of their houses which they only own to sell at a higher price later

toomanybeersies 8y ago

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.

int_19h 8y ago

Sure, as soon as you have a true allodial title for one. Until then, all real estate comes with strings attached.

cabaalis 8y ago

I agree with you on this principle, and when your property does not affect anyone else this right is an absolute. However groups of people who choose to live and work near each other generally decide that they have some say in what can be done, and this usually works out for the greater good.

minikites 8y ago

So I can move in next door to you and run my own small paper mill or hog rendering plant?

Dylan16807 8y ago

If you want to do almost whatever you want, buy a property outside of a city. Or you can just pay to make up for the economic damage your wasted space causes. You're not going to get jailed.

maxerickson 8y ago
Yeah, this is the simple rejoinder. People have taken their collective property (the city) and added some rules about how you have to behave. I guess it sucks for people that get incorporated against their will or whatever.

baroffoos 8y ago

Then you get issues with the rich from other places using your city as a wealth storage zone and suddenly you have millions of homes empty but no one has anywhere to live so the city dies.

dang 8y ago

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? Especially flamebaity ones; the combination amounts to trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html