5 ms·
vacancy is good. They pay property tax but not getting something back, which is means better service for locals.
by powerapple 8y ago
vacancy is good. They pay property tax but not getting something back, which is means better service for locals.
- yardstick 8y agoDepends on if the space could be occupied with others that also reside there and so pay income and other taxes as well. The property tax factor won’t be as high I guess, but maybe the income and sales tax from their living in the city would make up for it?
- kristianc 8y agoThe others who reside there also won’t be as invested in improving the local area as an owner-occupier would be, as most of the benefits of the area becoming nicer would accrue to the landlord through the rental market.
- yardstick 8y agoCould have middle class owner occupiers rather than ultra wealthy owner-unoccupiers?
- closeparen 8y agoAt the point where only international oligarchs can afford to live there, the neighborhood has been improved way too much.
- kristianc 8y agoWell quite - but that won't bother owner unoccupiers until it starts to have an effect on the value of their property. Municipal authorities that have to deal with completely hollowed out areas of town on the other hand..
- Aaargh20318 8y agoFrom the article: "Many of these towers stay vacant most of the year, so their owners are not subject to local and state income taxes because they are not city residents." So while they may pay property tax, they don't contribute as much as a local would.
- NotSammyHagar 8y agoVacancies where someone owns it and is probably wealthy but doesn't live there is very bad. This is because they don't help the businesses in that neighborhood stay economically viable. There's no bodega there, restaurants might not have enough money.