11 ms·
Whitby residents vote in favour of ending second home ownership
- moneywoes 4y agoNeed this in Vancouver
- ydlr 4y ago> The results of the vote, which saw just under a 23% turnout, do not carry any legal weight...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jfax 4y agoThat's the case of all referenda in the UK.
- superb-owl 4y agoI've always wondered why there aren't more restrictions or disincentives for second homes. Empty second homes generate a ton of economic waste. And a high percentage vacation/rental homes can completely ruin a local culture.
- bismuthcrystal 4y agoImplementation will be impossible. People will just own other properties through holding companies.
- blibble 4y agoeasy enough to block that with a restrictive covenant too
- mihaic 4y agoHypothetically, why can't you only allow private individuals to buy houses in a residential area? I honestly see no real issue with this in many communities.
- sidlls 4y agoRegulations can be made that prohibit ownership of residential properties by companies with certain structures, require that these companies list the true beneficial owner(s), etc. There will always be loopholes and attempts to find them, but that shouldn't necessarily be a deterrent to taking action. About 70% of my investment income comes through indirect and direct ownership of residential and commercial property. It's just too easy for the wealthy to come in and buy up properties to price others out.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xwolfi 4y agoBecause it's hard to forbid you to own stuff honestly, and lots of people did nothing wrong, sometimes worked all their lives, for a second home.
- jensus 4y agoI believe the principle is that it is inherently bad that _anyone_ owns a second home.
- FredPret 4y agoWhy stop there. Let’s also ban ownership of more socks than what is needed. Also computers, cars, food, pets, kids, hell, why not money itself. Pay no attention to all those failed states that have already tried this - this time will be different!
- shakezula 4y agoYou're purposely conflating necessities with luxuries to strengthen your argument. You don't die (directly) from a lack of computers, but you absolutely do die from a lack of housing and food.
- FredPret 4y agoWho draws the line between necessity and luxury? Who draws the line between enough and too much? Who could be so arrogant as to volunteer an opinion on this for all of society? Further, your argument doesn’t hold water - food is a requirement, but does it have to be grass fed beef? Could I not make do with soylent green? This way of thinking is a race to the bottom. It must be avoided at all costs.
- shakezula 4y agoHave you ever been on food stamps or WIC? The lines between luxury and necessity are already quite well defined by at least my humble midwestern state.
- hoosieree 4y agoHow about a requirement that any residence must be occupied for a majority of the year, else the owner forfeits ownership of the empty property?
- seoaeu 4y agoSounds like a great way to discourage the construction of rental property.
- dkresge 4y agoI agree with your point regarding local culture, but I'm not clear on the economic waste. An empty second home generates property tax revenue for the city/town in which it exists, yet, by virtue of being empty, creates no burden on power, schools, roads or other infrastructure. I would suspect that regions with large percentages of vacation homes (e.g. Cape Coral, FL, USA) scale to meet the needs of their resident population. Could they even support 100% occupancy?
- dudul 4y agoVacation and rental houses can also generate a lot of money/jobs for towns/cities. Yeah, it's ugly but the fact remains, quite a lot of costal towns need these rentals for their economy to work.
- usrn 4y agoI'm pretty sure these sorts of restrictions will just slow down construction. IMO: the real problem is that it's very hard for individuals to get loans for construction easily (and the ones you can get are extremely risky because the rates can change on you.)
- lelag 4y agoIt looks like a great ruling for increasing the wealth of current homeowners. By only restricting the purpose of new housing, you will increase demand and by extension, increase prices of the existing homes. Basically, it seems to be a great scheme for resident to have a new home built at little cost by reselling their existing older home at an increased value.
- smt88 4y agoYou have it backwards. Communities that are suddenly purged of investors will suffer a drop in home prices. It's a lot harder to sell a house if you cut off a large and wealthy chunk of the market.
- lelag 4y agoNo, I don't. If you are serious about limiting the effect of second homeownership, you don't restrict it to new homes but to the whole park. Look at the Swiss Federal Act on Second Homes at https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2015/886/en to see a proper legislation to that effect. It prevent alteration of usage of existing homes in communes with second homes in excess of 20%. The measure as described will: - lower the demand and price for buildable terrain - increase demand and price for existing homes Both are financially favourable to existing homeowner residents but not to first time buyer who will still have to compete with investors on the older homes market.
- smt88 4y agoWhy is Canada banning foreign investment to reduce home prices? I'm either misunderstanding your claim, or it doesn't make superficial sense. If every home must be a primary residence, you have reduced demand because investors (who are often able to spend more than a resident/owner) can't buy there. Talk to anyone who has tried to buy a house in a developed country in the last 5 years. They were very likely competing with cash offers from investors, often at an insane (I would say speculative) premium. I have observed this locally while looking at condos and vacation homes, but it also makes theoretical sense and is supported by data: https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-institutes/burnham-moores-real-estate/AirBNB%2520Blog%2520Miller%2520Sklarz.pdf https://www.sandiego.edu/business/documents/centers-and-inst...
- londons_explore 4y agoThis is a classic example of "lets ask only half the interested parties". If you could magically track down every person who would in the future purchase a new-build home in Whitby, and did a vote of those people, then they would presumably be massively against having their home under a restrictive covenant forcing someone to live there the whole time.
- guicho271828 4y agoPeople not living there have no legal right to vote there. To do so they should move there and give up the right at the other residence. > every person who would in the future purchase does not exist yet.
- yardstick 4y agoThis brings up an interesting point. Taxation without representation. If you have a house in the area you will be taxed on it annually via council tax. But if you aren’t resident there you don’t get any say in the local politics.
- Broken_Hippo 4y agoThis is just ridiculous. This is akin to someone wanting to vote in a state or country that they don't actually live in, but plan on moving there in the future. Even if they have a job offer there, you still have to be a resident first before you actually get to vote in what happens.
- londons_explore 4y agoHow about I arrive at a popular beach early one morning when it's nice and quiet, and hold an election of all people currently on the beach whether we want to allow more people onto the beach? Obviously everyone on the beach doesn't want the beach to get crowded, so they'll say no.. But the democratic approach is to also ask those who were planning on arriving at the beach later, even though they haven't arrived yet.
- ciabattabread 4y agoAs someone who has little to no understanding of how UK laws work, what is the enforcement mechanism for this? A person can’t own two homes in Whitby? Or a person can’t own a home in London and Whitby? > The results of the vote, which saw just under a 23% turnout, do not carry any legal weight Wait, all they did was conduct an official opinion poll?
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe Brexit vote didn't carry any legal weight, either. Still got implemented.
- phphphphp 4y agoThe article mentions new build developments. A property developer must have approval to build, there is no legal right to build on acquired land. Approval comes from the local council, according to various local criteria (like, are local schools at capacity?). Therefore, they could conceivably require that property developers must obey these new rules to be granted permission ("do you agree to only sell to people who don't already own a home?").
- blibble 4y agocouncil can block planning permission for new homes that don't have their chosen set of restrictive covenants, which are tied to the property in perpetuity, transferring from old owner to new owner at sale time similar to HOAs in the US (though they have no power to add them to existing properties)
- jmyeet 4y agoShelter is or should be a basic human right. Hoarding of housing should thus be viewed as a human rights violation. Between second homes (and third, fourth and fifth homes), AirBnB/VRBO/etc, the ultra-wealthy parking money in real estate, real estate markets catering to the ultra-wealthy by mostly or entirely building properties for the ultra-wealthy, rampant NIMBYism, institutional buying of residential housing and protecting property values becoming a political goal we have a complete mess on our hands. Let's start with this: 1. PUnitiviely taxing any property held by a non-individual as an owner. I'm talking at least 10% of the property's value every year; 2. Banning AirBnB in any case where the owner isn't living on the property; 3. Treating all owners as residents in that city, state and country for tax purposes and taxing their worldwide income accordingly. Let New York be for New Yorkers; 4. Ending tax abatements for ultra-wealthy property development; 5. Properties above 200% of the median value should also be taxed at a much higher rate; 6. Property that isn't occupied the majority of the year should also be taxed punitively.
- seoaeu 4y agoSaying that anyone who can’t afford a down payment has to pay rent + 10% of the total home value in taxes each year is absurd.
- FredPret 4y agoInvesting != hoarding In fact investing stimulates new construction, having the exact opposite effect.
- nemothekid 4y ago>In fact investing stimulates new construction But this isn’t practically true in most major metropolitan areas. When one makes an investment as large as a home, one of the best ways to protect that investment is to block further construction (reducing supply and therefore raising demand on your investment)
- FredPret 4y agoWell let’s just make that shit illegal and let builders build new houses until supply meets demand. Voila.
- maratc 4y agoSo, these people — who supposedly own a home there — voted to keep any current homeowners (owning homes anywhere in the country) out of buying homes in their district, cutting a huge chunk of the home buyers from buying a home there. By drastically limiting the demand, they just sent their home prices down, making themselves potentially poorer (or much poorer) as a result. In a nutshell, they've just voted to rob themselves of money. Are there some ideals at work here, or is it a case of people not fully grasping the future consequences of their current actions?
- bitcurious 4y ago>Is there some ideals at work here, or is it a case of people not fully grasping the future consequences of their current actions? This is a false framing. There are real future consequences to having a community of vacationers - seasonal only restaurants, emptier schools and playgrounds, lack of trust, businesses that can't sustain themselves because the population only occasionally drops by, split voting with opposite interests re: long-term investment. Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle.
- maratc 4y ago> Your home is where you live, not just an investment vehicle. It's not an either-or proposition, it can be both at the same time. The issues you mention are real, but would the town be better off with a seasonal restaurant or with no restaurant at all? I'm no expert in British law, but what would happen if I want to buy a house there and get rejected because I already own one, and then I take them to the court?
- llimos 4y agoFor people who only own the house they live in - they are not likely to sell it, so its value going down is of less concern. Yes, perhaps they can borrow a bit less against it but again, not such a major concern. They are presumably thinking of their children (who these days can only buy a house with the help of the Bank of Mum and Dad), and the wider community. And themselves too, should they need to upsize. It's not as simple as value up = good, value down = bad.
- 3qz 4y agoThis should be easy to do in any community with a stigma against renting. No second homes in the community means no poor people stinking up the street and lowering property values
- imchillyb 4y agoThis world is immensely entitled. Humans are owed /nothing/ not a single solitary thing. We /strive/ for things, such as equality, and freedom of speech. Placing blame on X for Y's suffering is a straw-man argument, with straw-man solutions that fail spectacularly when trials are performed. Basic income? Yup 3 countries tried it, and ditched it immediately. Basic housing? Yup countries, counties, and states have tried this, and it failed miserably. ------ Morality, which is what the 'everyone deserves a house' mentality is, cannot be legislated; ever. Change comes by doing, not by forcing others to do for you. This world needs a giant enema.
- NoGravitas 4y agoBy virtue of our common humanity, we owe other humans according to our ability, and they owe us according to our need. Any other arrangement results in massive suffering (which many societies have rationalized as "natural", but it's absolutely not).
- jfax 4y agoThis makes no sense whatsoever. Is this a gpt-3 output.
- RickJWagner 4y agoHooray for Whitby! Bernie Sanders should be asked for his opinion on the matter.