16 ms·

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 lo

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.
- bradleybuda 8y ago
  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 economists use that term.
  - xenadu02 8y ago
    People need homes to live. Shelter is essential in the way very few things are.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      How about you start paying fines for all that unused food in your pantry?
      - alanlamm 8y ago
        Yes, or even better, for all that surplus lard on your body!
      - baroffoos 8y ago
        If there was some financial incentive to buy food and leave it to rot and this was causing a food shortage then yes, that is a sound idea.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Land in a developed area is in very limited supply, it's necessary to make the economy function, and most of the owners are speculating on the price going up. Kitchenware doesn't work that way. Almost nothing else works that way. Owning central land and not using it means that millions of people have to go further to get to their destinations. It also means that construction effort and money is going into a black hole and not turning into supply. Enough of this together makes a powerful negative externality.
    - dehrmann 8y ago
      > Land in a developed area is in very limited supply Because of high rises and land reclamation, this is a lot less true than you'd think.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        The zoning has to allow for building up before that counts.
jellicle 8y ago
Is that a trick question? The negative externality is leaving a usable property vacant when public policy encourages use. You're maintaining this situation: https://squattinglondon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/ominous-octopus-omnibus-500x294.jpg?w=640 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.

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.

bradleybuda 8y ago
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 economists use that term.
- xenadu02 8y ago
  People need homes to live. Shelter is essential in the way very few things are.
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    How about you start paying fines for all that unused food in your pantry?
    - alanlamm 8y ago
      Yes, or even better, for all that surplus lard on your body!
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      If there was some financial incentive to buy food and leave it to rot and this was causing a food shortage then yes, that is a sound idea.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Land in a developed area is in very limited supply, it's necessary to make the economy function, and most of the owners are speculating on the price going up. Kitchenware doesn't work that way. Almost nothing else works that way. Owning central land and not using it means that millions of people have to go further to get to their destinations. It also means that construction effort and money is going into a black hole and not turning into supply. Enough of this together makes a powerful negative externality.
  - dehrmann 8y ago
    > Land in a developed area is in very limited supply Because of high rises and land reclamation, this is a lot less true than you'd think.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      The zoning has to allow for building up before that counts.

jellicle 8y ago

Is that a trick question? The negative externality is leaving a usable property vacant when public policy encourages use. You're maintaining this situation: https://squattinglondon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/ominous-octopus-omnibus-500x294.jpg?w=640 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.