6 ms·

How would you enforce this? By having a list of all homeowners and checking that they live in the property they own? If they do not, then what? What if they own

by ilammy 5y ago

How would you enforce this? By having a list of all homeowners and checking that they live in the property they own? If they do not, then what? What if they own two homes? Now there would be no middle-ground. Either you own 1 (one) building under four units, in one of which you live. If you want to move, you must find another individual who would take your place. They'd also have to give up their single building and move into yours, for which they must find another individual... Either that, or you're a multi-millionaire investor owning condominiums and living in a private mansion, banned from ever owning small-unit-count buildings. I'd say, this would lead to the owner of the building on paper still owning a unit there, but putting their least socially protected tenants in it. Tell them that either they have an arrangement where they are not legally renting, but they still pay you money – and if law enforcement asks then tell that you're landlord's friends who are staying over long-term. Or they can go live in a cardboard box.

babyshake 5y ago
One solution is not to outlaw, but tax and redistribute to help others afford a primary residence.
- ilammy 5y ago
  That sounds like a better approach. Taxes are used to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. If you want to have families own their detached homes, make it so that their self-declared primary residence is taxed very little. You can own as many houses as you wish – but the more you own, the higher the tax rate on all the extra ones which are considered “small”. Then families can have a house or two, or maybe even three – whatever you consider a “reasonable” amount. Then businesses can own as many 50-unit condominiums and office complexes as they want, without any diminishing returns. However, it could be economically impractical to own more than, say, two “small” homes – if you have to pay yearly homeownership tax on each “small” home that is not your primary residence, of 20% of the property value for each one that you own. You own five – you pay 100% of value of each of them every year. You own one extra house – you sponsor a new house for a new family once every five years. But that would require some political will to screw over the rich people. And those are the people who are building the houses in the first place, so you'd also need to ensure that families can build a home for themselves if the businesses are not willing to build property they can't profit off by renting it out instead of selling.
quickthrower2 5y ago
Rather than make it a rule, tax it. For example in Australia there is CGT on an investment property apportioned to the time it acted as such (as apposed to principle place of residence). CGT is fairly lame in Australia with both a 50% discount and perhaps you need not pay it for 1000 years if you keep passing the property down through family. Land tax and vacant property tax would help motivate thought!
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
NYC doesn’t allow you to lease a rent-stabilized apartment unless you live in it. There have certainly been cases of fraud, but on the whole it seems to be enforced well enough.
- anthony_d 5y ago
  Ahh… a city famous for its reasonably priced housing.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    You're joking, but actually, one thing I think people miss is that New York is significantly more affordable than San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, and other cities of its class. I think our housing policies deserve credit for that. There's tons of room for improvement, but we do some things right and you can see the results!
    - shuckles 5y ago
      No it’s not? Rents are higher in New York than Paris or San Francisco. It’s hard to make the exact comparison because incomes are lower in Paris and San Francisco is a worse city, but New York’s affordable housing policy is 100% just the subway and Jersey City. Everything else should not be emulated at any cost.

by ilammy 5y ago

babyshake 5y ago

One solution is not to outlaw, but tax and redistribute to help others afford a primary residence.

ilammy 5y ago
That sounds like a better approach. Taxes are used to encourage some behaviors and discourage others. If you want to have families own their detached homes, make it so that their self-declared primary residence is taxed very little. You can own as many houses as you wish – but the more you own, the higher the tax rate on all the extra ones which are considered “small”. Then families can have a house or two, or maybe even three – whatever you consider a “reasonable” amount. Then businesses can own as many 50-unit condominiums and office complexes as they want, without any diminishing returns. However, it could be economically impractical to own more than, say, two “small” homes – if you have to pay yearly homeownership tax on each “small” home that is not your primary residence, of 20% of the property value for each one that you own. You own five – you pay 100% of value of each of them every year. You own one extra house – you sponsor a new house for a new family once every five years. But that would require some political will to screw over the rich people. And those are the people who are building the houses in the first place, so you'd also need to ensure that families can build a home for themselves if the businesses are not willing to build property they can't profit off by renting it out instead of selling.

quickthrower2 5y ago

Rather than make it a rule, tax it. For example in Australia there is CGT on an investment property apportioned to the time it acted as such (as apposed to principle place of residence). CGT is fairly lame in Australia with both a 50% discount and perhaps you need not pay it for 1000 years if you keep passing the property down through family. Land tax and vacant property tax would help motivate thought!

Wowfunhappy 5y ago

NYC doesn’t allow you to lease a rent-stabilized apartment unless you live in it. There have certainly been cases of fraud, but on the whole it seems to be enforced well enough.

anthony_d 5y ago
Ahh… a city famous for its reasonably priced housing.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  You're joking, but actually, one thing I think people miss is that New York is significantly more affordable than San Francisco, Paris, Hong Kong, and other cities of its class. I think our housing policies deserve credit for that. There's tons of room for improvement, but we do some things right and you can see the results!
  - shuckles 5y ago
    No it’s not? Rents are higher in New York than Paris or San Francisco. It’s hard to make the exact comparison because incomes are lower in Paris and San Francisco is a worse city, but New York’s affordable housing policy is 100% just the subway and Jersey City. Everything else should not be emulated at any cost.