4 ms·

I disagree, I think outlawing investment properties would be a good first step in the right direction. People need these homes, they shouldn't just be sitting

I disagree, I think outlawing investment properties would be a good first step in the right direction. People need these homes, they shouldn't just be sitting empty.

tathougies 8y ago
I dont think any home in SF is sitting empty; nice strawman though.
- cletus 8y ago
  Au contraire, the estimates on empty housing units in SF varies between 15,000 and 30,000 (SF Tenants Union claims this IIRC). I've seen estimates as high as 1 in 8. Some blame this on rent control. Others on parking money in real estate. Vancouver and Oakland have reacted by enacting an empty house tax. SF I believe is also considering it.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    I'm not sure where your numbers are from. I looked it up: https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ San Francisco vacancy rates are below both the united states as a whole (1 in 16) and california (3.5%)
    - eppsilon 8y ago
      Does vacant mean "listed for rent but is not rented" or does it mean "could be lived in but is empty"? That could explain the difference in numbers.
    - abeppu 8y ago
      I think the ~30K number comes from the American Community Survey, run by the census department. At present, the most recent numbers are for 2017, and list 31K "vacant" units. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/DP04/1600000US0667000 https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/D... Combining apartments not currently occupied (including just transiently between leases), condos which haven't sold, AirBnBs, etc, I don't think this number is crazy. I'd be in favor of a tax on unoccupied units, and it should be painful. If we want to change policy to build more housing stock to house people, surely that policy choice is less effective every time some speculative investor buys a house or condo, and chooses not to rent it because tenants will drag down their resale price.
- nautilus12 8y ago
  1. This is false, and 2. Even if SF doesn't have this issue I know for a fact that NYC does. Someone told me you can go to central park and just look up at the skyline and entire buildings are just black because they are just parking cash for money laundering operations. It stands to reason if this is happening in NYC it can very likely be happening in other high housing price areas. 3. Why would my argument benefiet from setting up a strawman in this situation. 4. Do you know what a strawman is? Its where you set up a logical argument on a false premise and then knock it down yourself. My logical argument was that there are houses being used purely in SF for investment. What am I knocking down about that argument?

I disagree, I think outlawing investment properties would be a good first step in the right direction. People need these homes, they shouldn't just be sitting empty.

tathougies 8y ago

I dont think any home in SF is sitting empty; nice strawman though.

cletus 8y ago
Au contraire, the estimates on empty housing units in SF varies between 15,000 and 30,000 (SF Tenants Union claims this IIRC). I've seen estimates as high as 1 in 8. Some blame this on rent control. Others on parking money in real estate. Vancouver and Oakland have reacted by enacting an empty house tax. SF I believe is also considering it.
- tathougies 8y ago
  I'm not sure where your numbers are from. I looked it up: https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ San Francisco vacancy rates are below both the united states as a whole (1 in 16) and california (3.5%)
  - eppsilon 8y ago
    Does vacant mean "listed for rent but is not rented" or does it mean "could be lived in but is empty"? That could explain the difference in numbers.
  - abeppu 8y ago
    I think the ~30K number comes from the American Community Survey, run by the census department. At present, the most recent numbers are for 2017, and list 31K "vacant" units. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/DP04/1600000US0667000 https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ACS/17_5YR/D... Combining apartments not currently occupied (including just transiently between leases), condos which haven't sold, AirBnBs, etc, I don't think this number is crazy. I'd be in favor of a tax on unoccupied units, and it should be painful. If we want to change policy to build more housing stock to house people, surely that policy choice is less effective every time some speculative investor buys a house or condo, and chooses not to rent it because tenants will drag down their resale price.
nautilus12 8y ago
1. This is false, and 2. Even if SF doesn't have this issue I know for a fact that NYC does. Someone told me you can go to central park and just look up at the skyline and entire buildings are just black because they are just parking cash for money laundering operations. It stands to reason if this is happening in NYC it can very likely be happening in other high housing price areas. 3. Why would my argument benefiet from setting up a strawman in this situation. 4. Do you know what a strawman is? Its where you set up a logical argument on a false premise and then knock it down yourself. My logical argument was that there are houses being used purely in SF for investment. What am I knocking down about that argument?