3 ms·
AFAIK the theory is simple. If there’s only a single available property in an area and someone needs it, the landlord can charge whatever they want. If there’s
by profile53 5y ago
AFAIK the theory is simple. If there’s only a single available property in an area and someone needs it, the landlord can charge whatever they want. If there’s 100, the landlords are forced to compete. At a metropolitan scale, having 5% of apartments vacant guarantees a few will be available in any given area and prices cannot be excessive as someone will undercut them.
- phendrenad2 5y agoClearly the landlords are not forced to compete, because there are many more people who want to live in SF than there are vacant properties.
- jtsiskin 5y agoHow does taxing “housing units unoccupied for more than six months” change this at all? These aren’t units that are up for sale. These are empty units not for rent or sale
- profile53 5y agoFair point, I didn’t consider that. If the units aren’t on the rental market, it won’t affect pricing power even if they’re unoccupied.
- greendude29 5y agoWhere is this 5% coming from that you and the OP are citing? Also there is undoubtedly natural churn rate to rental housing, but there is little relation between that and the proposed legislation which only applies to that property that has been unoccupied for more than 6 months. I'm pro buildling in cities, but buildling for the free market (without an upper cap or max rent regulation) is not the solution to the housing crisis. I see a lot of poorly sourced-data and specious reasoning from the trigger happy YIMBY crowd. I'm hoping for more engagement which would show good faith discussions and critical thought.