10 ms·

It absolutely kills me that there are approximately 30 empty homes for every homeless person in the States. (Roughly 550k homeless and roughly 16M vacant homes.

It absolutely kills me that there are approximately 30 empty homes for every homeless person in the States. (Roughly 550k homeless and roughly 16M vacant homes.) Investors are part of the problem, but by no means the only part. Anything that reduces investor speculation on housing and returns units to the rental or purchase markets is ok by me.

ncallaway 4y ago
Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. I really wish there was an exponential property tax based on the number of properties that someone or some entity owns. I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed. Owning one property? Reasonable/cheap property tax. Own two properties? Pretty expensive property taxes. Own three properties? Eye watering property taxes. Own more than three? Truly insane property taxes. Especially for vacant properties
- refurb 4y ago
  Or, stay with me here, you just build enough housing? I know it’s a crazy idea, so go easy on me.
  - mordae 4y ago
    I've seen some calculations suggesting that the speculators will buy up anything at this point. It's impossible to build enough. Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. Also, what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace? Given the prices, that would be a sensible assumption, no?
    - refurb 4y ago
      Houses aren't being build which is the reason we're in trouble. And no, investors won't buy up all the houses. Blackrock's massive home buying fund was <1% of the total value of the housing market.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > speculators will buy up anything at this point The headline says "Investor home purchases drop 30%". > Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. That doesn't work. See the latest news on cryptocurrencies.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - paulgb 4y ago
      I haven’t seen those calculations but I’m very skeptical. The reason people are profitably able to invest in housing is that it is scarce. If the supply increased, housing would no longer be a desirable investment. > what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace There’s a lot of political pressure by existing homeowners not to green light additional housing in their neighborhoods, because it would bring the price of the homes they already own down. There are a number of high-density projects in NYC and SF that have been blocked by these efforts.
- simon_000666 4y ago
  I Wonder if there are some simple legal solutions to this. Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city. I like the sliding scale tax idea but I think the firms would just find ways to continually invest in new properties and use that to dodge tax until a point where they offshore :(
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.
    - yardstick 4y ago
      How does one determine if it’s vacant? I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.
      - jedberg 4y ago
        Usually it's based on where you file your taxes. You can only file taxes from one address.
        yardstick 4y ago
        Would this mean an end to holiday homes and second homes?
        jedberg 4y ago
        No it would just mean paying higher taxes on second homes and vacation homes. Which feels like the right thing to do.
        yardstick 4y ago
- ww520 4y ago
  Who do you think own the rentals that people live in?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. It's because while the statistic may be correct, it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    > it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer. Which means as a society we've chosen to value the liquidity of the housing market (something that I think is really good!) over the basic dignity and needs of human beings (something that I think is even more important!). That's a societal choice. In a society that absolutely has enough wealth to shelter and feed every person, the fact that we've chosen not to is simply a disgrace. That people die in the cold in America is a moral failing. If we were a poor nation, and couldn't afford otherwise that would be one thing. But we aren't, and it's simply a choice that we make to let people die in the cold.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Is it your proposal that any house going on the market should install a homeless person in it until it sells?
      - ncallaway 4y ago
        No. I made a proposal above (though, you’ll also not that I said I thought my proposal was unlikely to be workable in practice). But, if you review what I wrote, you’ll note I never proposed anything close to what you asked about. My actual proposal would be this: we should invest heavily in a housing first approach to homelessness at both the federal and state level. We should invest in this as a priority, as if it will save lives because it will. Along with that, we should invest in mental health and addiction treatment programs as a supplement. We should tax the fuck out of the rich to do so in a revenue neutral way.
        WalterBright 4y ago
- jasonkester 4y ago
  Why? I have two houses: one in England, one in France. I live in one during the year and one in The summer. Neither one is an investment. They’re both our home. Combined, they would sell for less than a cheap house in Southern California. Why do you want me to pay extra property tax because my home is split in two? It sounds like hold this view that anybody who owns anything is necessarily evil. But most of us are just people living their lives as best we can.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    Land is finite, desirable land even more so. You can summer in France but you can pay more to do so than if you lived there year round. Call it an incentive, not a punishment, if you want.
    - jasonkester 4y ago
      But I do pay more. I had to purchase an entire house and pay taxes on it. There is no shortage of houses here in farmland France or up in rural north England[1], which explains why houses are cheap enough that you can buy two of them. That’s the housing market working like it’s supposed to. Why does it need punishing or incentivising? [1] there are towns within a few miles with hundreds of boarded up row houses that you could get for a few thousand pounds if you like. Our village in France is surrounded by fields as far as you can see in two directions. If you want to come live here, you can (and people often do) buy a small piece of that land and build a house.
      - magicalist 4y ago
        > But I do pay more More per house. There's no natural law saying taxes need to be equal per house, or that they need to be commensurate with services consumed by those living in them. Taxes (and tax breaks) are also used to incentivize behavior, which is the answer to your original question of "why".
  - taneq 4y ago
    Your home isn’t split in two. You have two homes, one of which stands empty at any given time. That’s what they’re arguing against, some people owning multiple houses while others are homeless. They’re not saying it should be impossible, just more expensive.
- SpaghettiX 4y ago
  This happens in the UK, to an extent. Council tax (For a 3 bed flat in a good location, £2000/year) goes up, though not exponentially. > You can be charged an extra amount of Council Tax (a ‘premium’) if your home has been empty for 2 years or more. > You can be charged up to 4 times your normal Council Tax bill if your home has been empty for 10 years or more.
- _puk 4y ago
  "I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed." It's feasible (in some contexts), and has been implemented in Wales in recent years [0] (though not exponential, there's nothing stopping it from progressing that way). There used to be reduced taxes on second homes, recently changed to 100%, and now changing to max 300% (set by councils). They've also closed a number of loopholes to stop owners passing these homes off as dysfunctional businesses (listed to let without taking any lettings). There's a large disparity in wealth over a relatively short physical distance, resulting in a large number of homes in "idyllic" but poor areas being bought as second homes and spending the majority of the year empty. They've also moved to a land transaction tax that makes the second home purchase more expensive [1]. I'm not saying they are pulling the ladder up, and good to see these initiatives being put in place, but they don't necessarily solve the issue with existing vacant second houses which most likely have benefited from the lax taxation over the years combined with increasing property values. 0: https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes 1: https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide
aaronbrethorst 4y ago
Ah yes, the 'Ship Our Unhoused Neighbors to Detroit' 2022 Challenge. https://www.businessinsider.com/abandoned-houses-detroit-2011-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/abandoned-houses-detroit-201...
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Abandoned homes aren't the same as vacant homes. Most cities have low double digit vacancy rates. Whatever city you live in, odds are good there are units sitting vacant while people are homeless. https://anytimeestimate.com/research/most-vacant-cities-2022/#:~:text=These%20cities%20are%20known%20for,for%20much%20of%20the%20year.&text=More%20than%2016%20million%20housing,and%20home%20prices%20to%20rise https://anytimeestimate.com/research/most-vacant-cities-2022.... Edit: even in supply constrained cities like Seattle, there are ~10 vacant units for ever homeless person.
  - aaronbrethorst 4y ago
    Whatever city you live in, odds are good there are units sitting vacant while people are homeless. 100% true and while I appreciate your perspicacity, this will not resolve the issue. Seattle has a vacancy rate of 3.6% according to your cited source. Cities need a supply of vacant homes, lest we all become New York (vacancy rate 1.4%): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-18/looking-to-rent-in-nyc-what-bidding-wars-long-lines-mean-for-apartment-hunters https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-18/looking-t... As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only way out of this is to build more homes.
eftychis 4y ago
It will kill you to know that in San Francisco it was reported that 61k houses were empty. Either vacationing or waiting for rents to rise again. P.S. https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/61000-homes-are-empty-in-san-francisco-report/ https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/61000-homes-are-empty-in... Yeah... P.S. Not sure why one would pick San Francisco for seasonal use?! P.S. 2 Let's see how the empty home tax works out https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/voters-approve-san-francisco-s-empty-4969203/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/voters-approve-san-francis...
- refurb 4y ago
  Someone did an analysis and the true number of vacant homes someone can move into is like 10% of that figure. You figure the houses vacant because they’re sold/rented and waiting for move in, those under renovation, those where people have died and waiting to settle estate, etc and it’s 80-90% of that figure. It’s really dishonest.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Reminds me of the figure that made headlines a few years back - "50% of Corporations Paid No Income Tax!!!" There was much outrage, until the IRS said that the reason was that 50% of corporations lost money. Corporations are taxed on profits, not losses.
    - trasz2 4y ago
      Except those losses are often purely virtual.
    - enraged_camel 4y ago
      They "lost money" because they moved their profits to their subsidiaries abroad, where it is either not taxed, or taxed at much lower rates.
      - refurb 4y ago
        No, not in this case. They literally made no profit.
squokko 4y ago
There are some percentage of those 550K homeless who just need a home, but it's much lower than 50%. If you've seen a homeless person screaming at their reflection in a car window and then punching it repeatedly until their hand seems broken you will realize that that particular person's problem is not the lack of a housing structure.
- advael 4y ago
  As anyone who's ever tried to study any complex phenomenon in a rigorous way knows, determining causality is fraught. But I think it's fair to say that most mental illnesses are exacerbated by living in stressful and uncertain conditions, and having shelter is a basic need no matter how crazy you are. Thus, this seems like a poor argument against providing housing
  - qqtt 4y ago
    But basic shelter is frequently available but ask homeless individuals why they don't use it. It can be unsafe, even trying to learn about the shelter or queuing up for access is unsafe as these areas are frequently overrun by dangerous elements for vulnerable populations. Ask hotel owners how it worked being forced to house homeless during the pandemic and various other times. This is a complex issue no doubt, but it is the height of nativity to think we can use existing underutilized housing stock to solve or even help the existing homeless crisis. We have frequently tried it with poor results and poor outcomes. It is very very very hard to meaningfully address the existing homeless epidemic, which is intimately tied up with the opioid, general drug, and mental health epidemics, none of which we have any reasonable answers for.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      On the contrary, we've found as you actually build housing, prices go down (or at least rise more slowly) and homelessness goes down. This argument is a variant of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can improve the lot of many long before you need to solve all addictions.
JamesianP 4y ago
Are these houses or apartments? I don't see a problem with these real estate developers that are building and managing large apartments complexes themselves. Seems like they're doing a lot to add supply at the lower end. Even if they do maintain a certain vacancy rate.
CaptainNegative 4y ago
Isn't that ratio being high a good thing? For every person that becomes housed, that figure goes up.
WalterBright 4y ago
My neighbor's house is empty, as he just moved out. It's for sale, and it's far easier to prep a house for sale when empty. As soon as they finish the prep, a for sale sign will go up. Then it will sit empty till it is bought, and will then sit empty until closing and the new owner will move in. It may sit for a month or 6 waiting for a buyer. Now, multiply this by all the turnover in the housing market, and there will be many "empty" homes at any one time.
- joe-collins 4y ago
  > It may sit for a month or 6 waiting for a buyer. Gotta love that oh-so-efficient market.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    People who price high usually will have to wait longer for a buyer. In a hot market, the times will be less, in a cold market, more.
  - motoxpro 4y ago
    The wait just means there is low liquidity i.e. the spread is wide. They could sell it this minute if they offered it for 100$ but they are in "no rush" so they are willing to wait. Opendoor is trying to solve this by pretty much being a market maker for homes. This comment is independent of "should the housing market be more liquid" just a general "markets" comment
  - hackeraccount 4y ago
    Like Democracy the alternatives are worse.
- bmitc 4y ago
  In my area, homes sell over a weekend and typically the owner lives in them until closing basically. The open houses are nearly always done with the owners’ stuff still in the house. The houses sit empty for maybe a week. Is it really that common for a seller to move out while it is trying to be sold? Such a person would need a lot of money to do so.
ozim 4y ago
Simply giving people homes is not a solution for homelessness. It is much more complex problem. Homeless people need more help than just giving them flat or even a room.
- Fargren 4y ago
  I have a hard time reconciling this comment. If you gave each homeless person a house/apartment, in what way wouldn't you have solved homelessness? Are you saying many/most of them would abandon, destroy or otherwise not use those houses?
  - ozim 4y ago
    Maybe many would not destroy or abandon more like neglect or facilitate illicit activities. There is a lot of social work to be done but no one wants to pay for it. There were (I think still are in many places) projects where municipality in Europe would create social housing and putting let's say "not that lucky people" in one place does not help but creates its own problems. Where just providing flats was not enough because later no one had time do social work or money to pay social workers. I can say as a kid I was living in such a project, all of the "normal-city" people would refer to us as "special place" or "street of magic". Many people made their lives better or at least make it stable there. Some managed to burn down their flats creating problems for their neighbors. Then there was loads of shady stuff going on.
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Many people--perhaps the majority, even--are not homeless simply because they ran out of money to pay for housing; instead, they are homeless because they made life choices that led to them not being able to hold a job and pay for housing, or they have mental health issues that make it difficult for them to participate in a society where only those best able to adapt can afford good housing.
    - ozim 4y ago
      I like wording as in my opinion you managed to write it in a way where people are not to blame for their choices. Yes they made choices in life that led them to not be able to hold a job and pay for housing - but to say it was "bad choices" one need context of their lives to judge that and in addition it might be the case that choice was made for them and they could not do much about it.
bennysonething 4y ago
Reducing what you call investor speculation us very likely to also reduce investment in building houses. I want house builders to speculate on building homes. The profit incentive drives to create more homes. This is a good thing.
throwaway9870 4y ago
Giving a non-functional person a house would be a great way to destroy it.

ncallaway 4y ago

Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. I really wish there was an exponential property tax based on the number of properties that someone or some entity owns. I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed. Owning one property? Reasonable/cheap property tax. Own two properties? Pretty expensive property taxes. Own three properties? Eye watering property taxes. Own more than three? Truly insane property taxes. Especially for vacant properties

refurb 4y ago
Or, stay with me here, you just build enough housing? I know it’s a crazy idea, so go easy on me.
- mordae 4y ago
  I've seen some calculations suggesting that the speculators will buy up anything at this point. It's impossible to build enough. Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. Also, what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace? Given the prices, that would be a sensible assumption, no?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Houses aren't being build which is the reason we're in trouble. And no, investors won't buy up all the houses. Blackrock's massive home buying fund was <1% of the total value of the housing market.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > speculators will buy up anything at this point The headline says "Investor home purchases drop 30%". > Partly because buying up new houses protects the investment into the already owned. That doesn't work. See the latest news on cryptocurrencies.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - paulgb 4y ago
    I haven’t seen those calculations but I’m very skeptical. The reason people are profitably able to invest in housing is that it is scarce. If the supply increased, housing would no longer be a desirable investment. > what makes you think the market is not working and new houses are not being built at the highest possible pace There’s a lot of political pressure by existing homeowners not to green light additional housing in their neighborhoods, because it would bring the price of the homes they already own down. There are a number of high-density projects in NYC and SF that have been blocked by these efforts.
simon_000666 4y ago
I Wonder if there are some simple legal solutions to this. Like only individuals and non-profits are allowed to own houses or you can only own a property if you are registered as a resident of the city. I like the sliding scale tax idea but I think the firms would just find ways to continually invest in new properties and use that to dodge tax until a point where they offshore :(
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Aggressively tax vacant units is the simplest to implement, but there's a lot (lot) more that could be done.
  - yardstick 4y ago
    How does one determine if it’s vacant? I could just leave a PC on mining some random coin to ensure there was always a bit of power going on. Likewise leave a tap slowly going. Cheaper than any tax most likely.
    - jedberg 4y ago
      Usually it's based on where you file your taxes. You can only file taxes from one address.
      - yardstick 4y ago
        Would this mean an end to holiday homes and second homes?
        jedberg 4y ago
        No it would just mean paying higher taxes on second homes and vacation homes. Which feels like the right thing to do.
        yardstick 4y ago
ww520 4y ago
Who do you think own the rentals that people live in?
WalterBright 4y ago
> Every time I hear this statistic it drives me insane. It's because while the statistic may be correct, it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > it is a misrepresentation, as a lot of those "empty" homes are awaiting a buyer. Which means as a society we've chosen to value the liquidity of the housing market (something that I think is really good!) over the basic dignity and needs of human beings (something that I think is even more important!). That's a societal choice. In a society that absolutely has enough wealth to shelter and feed every person, the fact that we've chosen not to is simply a disgrace. That people die in the cold in America is a moral failing. If we were a poor nation, and couldn't afford otherwise that would be one thing. But we aren't, and it's simply a choice that we make to let people die in the cold.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Is it your proposal that any house going on the market should install a homeless person in it until it sells?
    - ncallaway 4y ago
      No. I made a proposal above (though, you’ll also not that I said I thought my proposal was unlikely to be workable in practice). But, if you review what I wrote, you’ll note I never proposed anything close to what you asked about. My actual proposal would be this: we should invest heavily in a housing first approach to homelessness at both the federal and state level. We should invest in this as a priority, as if it will save lives because it will. Along with that, we should invest in mental health and addiction treatment programs as a supplement. We should tax the fuck out of the rich to do so in a revenue neutral way.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
jasonkester 4y ago
Why? I have two houses: one in England, one in France. I live in one during the year and one in The summer. Neither one is an investment. They’re both our home. Combined, they would sell for less than a cheap house in Southern California. Why do you want me to pay extra property tax because my home is split in two? It sounds like hold this view that anybody who owns anything is necessarily evil. But most of us are just people living their lives as best we can.
- magicalist 4y ago
  Land is finite, desirable land even more so. You can summer in France but you can pay more to do so than if you lived there year round. Call it an incentive, not a punishment, if you want.
  - jasonkester 4y ago
    But I do pay more. I had to purchase an entire house and pay taxes on it. There is no shortage of houses here in farmland France or up in rural north England[1], which explains why houses are cheap enough that you can buy two of them. That’s the housing market working like it’s supposed to. Why does it need punishing or incentivising? [1] there are towns within a few miles with hundreds of boarded up row houses that you could get for a few thousand pounds if you like. Our village in France is surrounded by fields as far as you can see in two directions. If you want to come live here, you can (and people often do) buy a small piece of that land and build a house.
    - magicalist 4y ago
      > But I do pay more More per house. There's no natural law saying taxes need to be equal per house, or that they need to be commensurate with services consumed by those living in them. Taxes (and tax breaks) are also used to incentivize behavior, which is the answer to your original question of "why".
- taneq 4y ago
  Your home isn’t split in two. You have two homes, one of which stands empty at any given time. That’s what they’re arguing against, some people owning multiple houses while others are homeless. They’re not saying it should be impossible, just more expensive.
SpaghettiX 4y ago
This happens in the UK, to an extent. Council tax (For a 3 bed flat in a good location, £2000/year) goes up, though not exponentially. > You can be charged an extra amount of Council Tax (a ‘premium’) if your home has been empty for 2 years or more. > You can be charged up to 4 times your normal Council Tax bill if your home has been empty for 10 years or more.
_puk 4y ago
"I don’t think it would actually be feasible to implement, but I wish something like it existed." It's feasible (in some contexts), and has been implemented in Wales in recent years [0] (though not exponential, there's nothing stopping it from progressing that way). There used to be reduced taxes on second homes, recently changed to 100%, and now changing to max 300% (set by councils). They've also closed a number of loopholes to stop owners passing these homes off as dysfunctional businesses (listed to let without taking any lettings). There's a large disparity in wealth over a relatively short physical distance, resulting in a large number of homes in "idyllic" but poor areas being bought as second homes and spending the majority of the year empty. They've also moved to a land transaction tax that makes the second home purchase more expensive [1]. I'm not saying they are pulling the ladder up, and good to see these initiatives being put in place, but they don't necessarily solve the issue with existing vacant second houses which most likely have benefited from the lax taxation over the years combined with increasing property values. 0: https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes https://gov.wales/new-tax-rules-second-homes 1: https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide https://gov.wales/land-transaction-tax-guide

aaronbrethorst 4y ago

Ah yes, the 'Ship Our Unhoused Neighbors to Detroit' 2022 Challenge. https://www.businessinsider.com/abandoned-houses-detroit-2011-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/abandoned-houses-detroit-201...

socialismisok 4y ago
Abandoned homes aren't the same as vacant homes. Most cities have low double digit vacancy rates. Whatever city you live in, odds are good there are units sitting vacant while people are homeless. https://anytimeestimate.com/research/most-vacant-cities-2022/#:~:text=These%20cities%20are%20known%20for,for%20much%20of%20the%20year.&text=More%20than%2016%20million%20housing,and%20home%20prices%20to%20rise https://anytimeestimate.com/research/most-vacant-cities-2022.... Edit: even in supply constrained cities like Seattle, there are ~10 vacant units for ever homeless person.
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  Whatever city you live in, odds are good there are units sitting vacant while people are homeless. 100% true and while I appreciate your perspicacity, this will not resolve the issue. Seattle has a vacancy rate of 3.6% according to your cited source. Cities need a supply of vacant homes, lest we all become New York (vacancy rate 1.4%): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-18/looking-to-rent-in-nyc-what-bidding-wars-long-lines-mean-for-apartment-hunters https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-18/looking-t... As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the only way out of this is to build more homes.

eftychis 4y ago

It will kill you to know that in San Francisco it was reported that 61k houses were empty. Either vacationing or waiting for rents to rise again. P.S. https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/61000-homes-are-empty-in-san-francisco-report/ https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/61000-homes-are-empty-in... Yeah... P.S. Not sure why one would pick San Francisco for seasonal use?! P.S. 2 Let's see how the empty home tax works out https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/voters-approve-san-francisco-s-empty-4969203/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/voters-approve-san-francis...

refurb 4y ago
Someone did an analysis and the true number of vacant homes someone can move into is like 10% of that figure. You figure the houses vacant because they’re sold/rented and waiting for move in, those under renovation, those where people have died and waiting to settle estate, etc and it’s 80-90% of that figure. It’s really dishonest.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Reminds me of the figure that made headlines a few years back - "50% of Corporations Paid No Income Tax!!!" There was much outrage, until the IRS said that the reason was that 50% of corporations lost money. Corporations are taxed on profits, not losses.
  - trasz2 4y ago
    Except those losses are often purely virtual.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    They "lost money" because they moved their profits to their subsidiaries abroad, where it is either not taxed, or taxed at much lower rates.
    - refurb 4y ago
      No, not in this case. They literally made no profit.

squokko 4y ago

There are some percentage of those 550K homeless who just need a home, but it's much lower than 50%. If you've seen a homeless person screaming at their reflection in a car window and then punching it repeatedly until their hand seems broken you will realize that that particular person's problem is not the lack of a housing structure.

advael 4y ago
As anyone who's ever tried to study any complex phenomenon in a rigorous way knows, determining causality is fraught. But I think it's fair to say that most mental illnesses are exacerbated by living in stressful and uncertain conditions, and having shelter is a basic need no matter how crazy you are. Thus, this seems like a poor argument against providing housing
- qqtt 4y ago
  But basic shelter is frequently available but ask homeless individuals why they don't use it. It can be unsafe, even trying to learn about the shelter or queuing up for access is unsafe as these areas are frequently overrun by dangerous elements for vulnerable populations. Ask hotel owners how it worked being forced to house homeless during the pandemic and various other times. This is a complex issue no doubt, but it is the height of nativity to think we can use existing underutilized housing stock to solve or even help the existing homeless crisis. We have frequently tried it with poor results and poor outcomes. It is very very very hard to meaningfully address the existing homeless epidemic, which is intimately tied up with the opioid, general drug, and mental health epidemics, none of which we have any reasonable answers for.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    On the contrary, we've found as you actually build housing, prices go down (or at least rise more slowly) and homelessness goes down. This argument is a variant of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. You can improve the lot of many long before you need to solve all addictions.

JamesianP 4y ago

Are these houses or apartments? I don't see a problem with these real estate developers that are building and managing large apartments complexes themselves. Seems like they're doing a lot to add supply at the lower end. Even if they do maintain a certain vacancy rate.

CaptainNegative 4y ago

Isn't that ratio being high a good thing? For every person that becomes housed, that figure goes up.

WalterBright 4y ago

My neighbor's house is empty, as he just moved out. It's for sale, and it's far easier to prep a house for sale when empty. As soon as they finish the prep, a for sale sign will go up. Then it will sit empty till it is bought, and will then sit empty until closing and the new owner will move in. It may sit for a month or 6 waiting for a buyer. Now, multiply this by all the turnover in the housing market, and there will be many "empty" homes at any one time.

joe-collins 4y ago
> It may sit for a month or 6 waiting for a buyer. Gotta love that oh-so-efficient market.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- WalterBright 4y ago
  People who price high usually will have to wait longer for a buyer. In a hot market, the times will be less, in a cold market, more.
- motoxpro 4y ago
  The wait just means there is low liquidity i.e. the spread is wide. They could sell it this minute if they offered it for 100$ but they are in "no rush" so they are willing to wait. Opendoor is trying to solve this by pretty much being a market maker for homes. This comment is independent of "should the housing market be more liquid" just a general "markets" comment
- hackeraccount 4y ago
  Like Democracy the alternatives are worse.
bmitc 4y ago
In my area, homes sell over a weekend and typically the owner lives in them until closing basically. The open houses are nearly always done with the owners’ stuff still in the house. The houses sit empty for maybe a week. Is it really that common for a seller to move out while it is trying to be sold? Such a person would need a lot of money to do so.

ozim 4y ago

Simply giving people homes is not a solution for homelessness. It is much more complex problem. Homeless people need more help than just giving them flat or even a room.

Fargren 4y ago
I have a hard time reconciling this comment. If you gave each homeless person a house/apartment, in what way wouldn't you have solved homelessness? Are you saying many/most of them would abandon, destroy or otherwise not use those houses?
- ozim 4y ago
  Maybe many would not destroy or abandon more like neglect or facilitate illicit activities. There is a lot of social work to be done but no one wants to pay for it. There were (I think still are in many places) projects where municipality in Europe would create social housing and putting let's say "not that lucky people" in one place does not help but creates its own problems. Where just providing flats was not enough because later no one had time do social work or money to pay social workers. I can say as a kid I was living in such a project, all of the "normal-city" people would refer to us as "special place" or "street of magic". Many people made their lives better or at least make it stable there. Some managed to burn down their flats creating problems for their neighbors. Then there was loads of shady stuff going on.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Many people--perhaps the majority, even--are not homeless simply because they ran out of money to pay for housing; instead, they are homeless because they made life choices that led to them not being able to hold a job and pay for housing, or they have mental health issues that make it difficult for them to participate in a society where only those best able to adapt can afford good housing.
  - ozim 4y ago
    I like wording as in my opinion you managed to write it in a way where people are not to blame for their choices. Yes they made choices in life that led them to not be able to hold a job and pay for housing - but to say it was "bad choices" one need context of their lives to judge that and in addition it might be the case that choice was made for them and they could not do much about it.

bennysonething 4y ago

Reducing what you call investor speculation us very likely to also reduce investment in building houses. I want house builders to speculate on building homes. The profit incentive drives to create more homes. This is a good thing.

throwaway9870 4y ago

Giving a non-functional person a house would be a great way to destroy it.