4 ms·

- Maybe they want to move into it later. - Maybe they haven't found a suitable tenant yet. - Maybe they are holding it open for a friend or family member. -

by harryh 6y ago

- Maybe they want to move into it later. - Maybe they haven't found a suitable tenant yet. - Maybe they are holding it open for a friend or family member. - Maybe they want to do some renovations before renting it out. - Maybe they want to sell the property and it's easier to sell without an existing tenant. I can think of lots of reasons.

sudosysgen 6y ago
>- Maybe they want to move into it later. Then they should lease it meanwhile or pay the tax, it's rare for people to buy houses fully finished, say, a year in advance. >- Maybe they haven't found a suitable tenant yet. They can lower the price to find a suitable tenant faster. >- Maybe they are holding it open for a friend or family member. Then that friend or family can move there officially while still occupying their current dwelling until the grace period expires again. >- Maybe they want to do some renovations before renting it out. These laws in practice have an exemption for rénovations. >- Maybe they want to sell the property and it's easier to sell without an existing tenant. Then they should price it as to sell within the grace period, or pay the tax.
- harryh 6y ago
  What's so special about housing that you need an extra special tax like this? We don't have it for cars or machinery or other kinds of capital goods. I'll answer my own question: the root problem of too high rents is that governments: 1) have outlawed the construction of enough new housing to meet demand. 2) many places (CA especially) have property taxes that are drastically too low (and in CA's case, radically unfair). Vacancy taxes are a bad hack. As you note in your comment you have to build in all kinds of grace periods or exceptions and even these can often be easily gamed or ignored. Cities will be much better off if they fix the real underlying problems.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    This law was implemented in Vancouver. It worked at reducing vacanies. It wasn't gamed, because the fact that a person can only have one residence and that that confers a lot of rights is enough to dissuade it. >What's so special about housing that you need an extra special tax like this? We don't have it for cars or machinery or other kinds of capital goods. Land is not capital. It is not infinitely reproducible. You can't make more land, and as a result there is hard limit to any one kind of housing. >1) have outlawed the construction of enough new housing to meet demand. I agree that this should be fixed >2) in many places (CA especially) have property taxes that are drastically too low (and in CA's case, radically unfair). That is really far from being the reason for high rents, since most places with high rents don't have Prop 13.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Prop 13 causes all cities in CA to collude against building more housing. Any city that breaks this gets "punished" with the full force of other Californians escaping their poorly planned city.
  - lelandbatey 6y ago
    I cannot manufacture more land downtown, while a car can be manufactured and moved wherever. Land, unlike other capital goods, cannot move to meet demand.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    An unused machine sitting in the middle of a busy factory floor gets in everyone's way and quickly finds itself being thrown out so the factory can run more efficiently. An unused plot of land sitting fenced off in the middle of your city extends everyone's commute and diminishes the services available within walking distance in its neighbourhood. A municipal government interested in a functioning city will want to put that space to better use just like the factory owner did, and structure landowner incentives appropriately.
acdha 6y ago
There are possible reasons but it’s important to remember that there are also costs: empty buildings don’t contribute to the local culture or economy, and can become an eyesore or attract crime. A tax helps encourage owners to minimize those negatives and could easily be phased in or have an appeal process (e.g. show that you have building permits for a 6 month waiver).

by harryh 6y ago

sudosysgen 6y ago

>- Maybe they want to move into it later. Then they should lease it meanwhile or pay the tax, it's rare for people to buy houses fully finished, say, a year in advance. >- Maybe they haven't found a suitable tenant yet. They can lower the price to find a suitable tenant faster. >- Maybe they are holding it open for a friend or family member. Then that friend or family can move there officially while still occupying their current dwelling until the grace period expires again. >- Maybe they want to do some renovations before renting it out. These laws in practice have an exemption for rénovations. >- Maybe they want to sell the property and it's easier to sell without an existing tenant. Then they should price it as to sell within the grace period, or pay the tax.

harryh 6y ago
What's so special about housing that you need an extra special tax like this? We don't have it for cars or machinery or other kinds of capital goods. I'll answer my own question: the root problem of too high rents is that governments: 1) have outlawed the construction of enough new housing to meet demand. 2) many places (CA especially) have property taxes that are drastically too low (and in CA's case, radically unfair). Vacancy taxes are a bad hack. As you note in your comment you have to build in all kinds of grace periods or exceptions and even these can often be easily gamed or ignored. Cities will be much better off if they fix the real underlying problems.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  This law was implemented in Vancouver. It worked at reducing vacanies. It wasn't gamed, because the fact that a person can only have one residence and that that confers a lot of rights is enough to dissuade it. >What's so special about housing that you need an extra special tax like this? We don't have it for cars or machinery or other kinds of capital goods. Land is not capital. It is not infinitely reproducible. You can't make more land, and as a result there is hard limit to any one kind of housing. >1) have outlawed the construction of enough new housing to meet demand. I agree that this should be fixed >2) in many places (CA especially) have property taxes that are drastically too low (and in CA's case, radically unfair). That is really far from being the reason for high rents, since most places with high rents don't have Prop 13.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Prop 13 causes all cities in CA to collude against building more housing. Any city that breaks this gets "punished" with the full force of other Californians escaping their poorly planned city.
- lelandbatey 6y ago
  I cannot manufacture more land downtown, while a car can be manufactured and moved wherever. Land, unlike other capital goods, cannot move to meet demand.
- jbay808 6y ago
  An unused machine sitting in the middle of a busy factory floor gets in everyone's way and quickly finds itself being thrown out so the factory can run more efficiently. An unused plot of land sitting fenced off in the middle of your city extends everyone's commute and diminishes the services available within walking distance in its neighbourhood. A municipal government interested in a functioning city will want to put that space to better use just like the factory owner did, and structure landowner incentives appropriately.

acdha 6y ago

There are possible reasons but it’s important to remember that there are also costs: empty buildings don’t contribute to the local culture or economy, and can become an eyesore or attract crime. A tax helps encourage owners to minimize those negatives and could easily be phased in or have an appeal process (e.g. show that you have building permits for a 6 month waiver).