3 ms·
Its a meaningless stat in the context of housing that a property can be counted as vacant because the owner needs two weeks to clean it out and update it for a
by fasthands9 4y ago
Its a meaningless stat in the context of housing that a property can be counted as vacant because the owner needs two weeks to clean it out and update it for a new owner. Why not count a home as vacant when you leave for work? It's technically true in the same way but also has close to zero meaning in terms of housing people.
Preston - who is the one elevating this stat - has blocked a lot of housing in SF over character and other concerns. I don't think its reading too much into it that he pushes this stat so he can continue to block new housing projects while pretending to be progressive
https://nimby.report/preston https://nimby.report/preston
- HWR_14 4y agoI think the term "for rent" might mean different things to different people. I read that as "apartments listed as being available to rent to the public (e.g. on apartments.com) with no signed contract for anyone to move in". Which I would think would be one of the primary reasons for vacancy. Meanwhile, your source seems to say some houses shouldn't be counted vacant because they are 2nd, 3rd or 4th houses, or are listed on AirBnB as short term rentals, all of which I would classify as vacant. I know 1/6 vacant homes are a second home in SF (according to the YouTube video). But I would agree with you that apartments that will be empty for < 1 month as turnover happen makes no sense to classify as vacant, assuming that the new renter is identified.