3 ms·

> where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property

> where all the real estate sitting idle suddenly enters the market Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? Existing rentals are not going to lower their prices, so these new rentals that are coming into market are simply going to match the existing rentals, because otherwise they would be leaving money on the table

6510 5y ago
I think the height of taxation makes the difference. Your 10% would go up if the tax is higher. IMHO (or call it a gut feeling) the best way to ruin market value is not higher or lower taxation. You have to change the tax often and dramatically. Tie it to the difference between highest and lowest temperatures measured in the previous year every 13th full moon.
throwoutway 5y ago
> Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? It’s a way to store money now, and drives up the appreciation. Sometimes the money is illicit or hidden from taxes or govs. Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it
- arwineap 5y ago
  Drives up appreciation... I guess, but that can only be realized when you sell, or you refi out and get charged more money for holding it vacant. > Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it Seems like the government made changes in 2017 with the Empty home tax. Gotta say, the numbers do not look that interesting. 1,627 vacants in 2020 out of 195,012 residences. The doc notes that in 2017 there were 2,193 vacants, which indicates that the problem wasn't really that much worse than it is now. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-tax-annual-report.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-ta... Is it possible that it's something other people intentionally losing money on vacant properties?

6510 5y ago

I think the height of taxation makes the difference. Your 10% would go up if the tax is higher. IMHO (or call it a gut feeling) the best way to ruin market value is not higher or lower taxation. You have to change the tax often and dramatically. Tie it to the difference between highest and lowest temperatures measured in the previous year every 13th full moon.

throwoutway 5y ago

> Even if we assume 10% of housing is consumed by people intentionally holding their property vacant (what is it that would motivate them to do this exactly?) would that really move the needle on anything? It’s a way to store money now, and drives up the appreciation. Sometimes the money is illicit or hidden from taxes or govs. Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it

arwineap 5y ago
Drives up appreciation... I guess, but that can only be realized when you sell, or you refi out and get charged more money for holding it vacant. > Ask Vancouver how many vacant homes they have, yet “no housing”. The government is now making changes to stop it Seems like the government made changes in 2017 with the Empty home tax. Gotta say, the numbers do not look that interesting. 1,627 vacants in 2020 out of 195,012 residences. The doc notes that in 2017 there were 2,193 vacants, which indicates that the problem wasn't really that much worse than it is now. https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-tax-annual-report.pdf https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-empty-homes-ta... Is it possible that it's something other people intentionally losing money on vacant properties?