2 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoDoes 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 agoI 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.