3 ms·

Having it empty is a negative impact on the surroundings, not dissimilar to a bad smell or loud noises. It's perfectly reasonable for the city to have a say in

Having it empty is a negative impact on the surroundings, not dissimilar to a bad smell or loud noises. It's perfectly reasonable for the city to have a say in this.

refurb 5y ago
You really want to go down that path? Negative impact is pretty subjective. Maybe we should tax all the dog owners too? To offset the noise and dog poop that doesn’t get picked up?
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Dog taxes are actually levied in some places, including developed countries. https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/pets-information-germany https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/pets-information-germany
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  Part of a government's job is to play a role in shaping laws and society in ways that make it nice to live in, and if (for whatever reason) the current set-up is incentivising a lot of unused land even while pricing people out of the area, then taking action against it sounds reasonable. It might not gel with your (I imagine) rightish libertarianish beliefs, but it certainly fits with the general idea of the role of government, especially local government.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    Why not just let the market take care of it? I’d support not incentivizing vacant property (via the tax code, limiting deductible losses and/or write offs on real estate) but absolutely do not believe government has a right to force a property to rent their property out. That’s tyranny. And what wound stop the property owner from just creating a “business” that is open “by appointment only”? There would be many ways around it.
    - rdtwo 5y ago
      Because free market isn’t free. The reason these properties aren’t rented out is tied to some off financial/financing incentives that encourage this activity.
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      The market only achieves the idealized results in ideal situations where supply and demand can freely change with minimal costs. Real estate in cities is inherently supply limited because you can't magic more land out of nowhere and building a larger building only kind of works for retail because upper floors make for shitty retail spaces. There are also a lot of forces pushing building owners to keep rents high, principally because building value is partially determined by the rental rates of that building. So if an owner is angling to sell or get a loan they have a strong incentive to not lower rents so long as the rents are in line with the 'market' rate because it immediately lowers the value of their property if they do, potentially driving them underwater on any loans. > creating a “business” that is open “by appointment only” The law could easily address this with requirements about public accessibility. It's disingenuous to pretend the law has to use the broadest, most abusable definition of any word to create loop hole counter arguments.
      - mikepurvis 5y ago
        > principally because building value is partially determined by the rental rates of that building I've seen this cited a number of places, but I wonder where it originates. Like, could the head could be cut off the dragon by changing the rules on this— maybe creating some kind of system where the rental value is discounted x% for each month that the rent is not actually collected by a tenant using the space for its intended purpose (no "parking" the space as pop up storage units or something). But yeah, is it banks, lenders, appraisers? Is this an actual rule or just a rule of thumb? As it stands, it seems there's basically no mechanism to push down commercial rents ever— it's an up-only ratchet because of this rent-derived-value thing. > It's disingenuous to pretend the law has to use the broadest, most abusable definition of any word to create loop hole counter arguments. Indeed, and usable definitions for a non-pretend business are I expect well-established in the context of things like shopping malls, where tenants have exactly this kind of agreement with the landlord not only that they will maintain a functioning storefront during the mall's operating hours, but that all the other stores will be occupied and operating too— no mall store wants to operate surrounded by boarded up windows any more than a non-mall store does, and it's the responsibility of the management to keep all the storefronts occupied.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Seattle has a dog and cat tax
  - refurb 5y ago
    $50 per year hardly accounts for externalities
    - mikepurvis 5y ago
      But it's not nothing— across 100s of thousands of animals, that would be enough to hire some number of additional staff, bylaw enforcement officers, etc; at least something to offset the added load of complaints and other issues related to these pets.

Having it empty is a negative impact on the surroundings, not dissimilar to a bad smell or loud noises. It's perfectly reasonable for the city to have a say in this.

refurb 5y ago

You really want to go down that path? Negative impact is pretty subjective. Maybe we should tax all the dog owners too? To offset the noise and dog poop that doesn’t get picked up?

inglor_cz 5y ago
Dog taxes are actually levied in some places, including developed countries. https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/pets-information-germany https://www.iamexpat.de/lifestyle/pets-information-germany
dukeyukey 5y ago
Part of a government's job is to play a role in shaping laws and society in ways that make it nice to live in, and if (for whatever reason) the current set-up is incentivising a lot of unused land even while pricing people out of the area, then taking action against it sounds reasonable. It might not gel with your (I imagine) rightish libertarianish beliefs, but it certainly fits with the general idea of the role of government, especially local government.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Why not just let the market take care of it? I’d support not incentivizing vacant property (via the tax code, limiting deductible losses and/or write offs on real estate) but absolutely do not believe government has a right to force a property to rent their property out. That’s tyranny. And what wound stop the property owner from just creating a “business” that is open “by appointment only”? There would be many ways around it.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Because free market isn’t free. The reason these properties aren’t rented out is tied to some off financial/financing incentives that encourage this activity.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    The market only achieves the idealized results in ideal situations where supply and demand can freely change with minimal costs. Real estate in cities is inherently supply limited because you can't magic more land out of nowhere and building a larger building only kind of works for retail because upper floors make for shitty retail spaces. There are also a lot of forces pushing building owners to keep rents high, principally because building value is partially determined by the rental rates of that building. So if an owner is angling to sell or get a loan they have a strong incentive to not lower rents so long as the rents are in line with the 'market' rate because it immediately lowers the value of their property if they do, potentially driving them underwater on any loans. > creating a “business” that is open “by appointment only” The law could easily address this with requirements about public accessibility. It's disingenuous to pretend the law has to use the broadest, most abusable definition of any word to create loop hole counter arguments.
    - mikepurvis 5y ago
      > principally because building value is partially determined by the rental rates of that building I've seen this cited a number of places, but I wonder where it originates. Like, could the head could be cut off the dragon by changing the rules on this— maybe creating some kind of system where the rental value is discounted x% for each month that the rent is not actually collected by a tenant using the space for its intended purpose (no "parking" the space as pop up storage units or something). But yeah, is it banks, lenders, appraisers? Is this an actual rule or just a rule of thumb? As it stands, it seems there's basically no mechanism to push down commercial rents ever— it's an up-only ratchet because of this rent-derived-value thing. > It's disingenuous to pretend the law has to use the broadest, most abusable definition of any word to create loop hole counter arguments. Indeed, and usable definitions for a non-pretend business are I expect well-established in the context of things like shopping malls, where tenants have exactly this kind of agreement with the landlord not only that they will maintain a functioning storefront during the mall's operating hours, but that all the other stores will be occupied and operating too— no mall store wants to operate surrounded by boarded up windows any more than a non-mall store does, and it's the responsibility of the management to keep all the storefronts occupied.
rdtwo 5y ago
Seattle has a dog and cat tax
- refurb 5y ago
  $50 per year hardly accounts for externalities
  - mikepurvis 5y ago
    But it's not nothing— across 100s of thousands of animals, that would be enough to hire some number of additional staff, bylaw enforcement officers, etc; at least something to offset the added load of complaints and other issues related to these pets.