4 ms·

A landlord can’t unilaterally opt out of the vacancy tax though. It takes a tenant to agree to rent it and if society has done a shit job collectively to make t

by voisin 4y ago

A landlord can’t unilaterally opt out of the vacancy tax though. It takes a tenant to agree to rent it and if society has done a shit job collectively to make the area viable for tenants (due to lack of crime or amount of foot traffic or tenants working from office) then the landlord is penalized with taxes for something the landlord can’t control. Paying income taxes is the “cost” of having income. You can opt out unilaterally. The analogy is wrong.

jasonpeacock 4y ago
The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. There is plenty the landlord can control. What this tax does is say the landlord can't just sit on empty properties without penalty. Heck, the landlord could even work collectively with society to make the area viable for tenants!
- voisin 4y ago
  > The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. The Landlord occupying vast swathes of vacant space in its portfolio is the same as it being vacant. You realize landlords don’t have 1 employee for every employee it’s tenant has, right? That doesn’t scale. Selling just transfers the issue to someone else. Making the property more appealing isn’t as groundbreaking a proposition as you might think it is. Every landlord with vacancies in the country is trying to do just that. Implicit in your entire statement is that somehow Landlords are choosing to keep space vacant, against their own business interests, to… what? Spite the community? It makes no sense what you are saying. They are being punished with this tax while already paying property taxes, utilities, security, maintenance, etc, when the issue is that a pandemic hit and everyone started working from home. Now they should be punished with another tax because the angry masses want to shift the tax burden to them. Democracy at its worst.
  - arretevad 4y ago
    Selling doesn’t transfer the “issue” to someone else. It houses someone in need.
camgunz 4y ago
All kinds of industries have regulations. You can't go into the medical devices industry and get super pissed at the FDA when they tell you you can't sell your stuff without their approval. You could argue "hey it's my property and I'll sell it if I want to", but that won't work and for good reason. Becoming a landlord is going into business, and there are regulations and risk. Sometimes you go bust. That's life. If you picked up a property that's somehow unrentable in SF you should sell tickets, I'm sure a lot of people would love to see what kind of insane hellhole you couldn't get someone to rent for even $1 to avoid the tax.
- voisin 4y ago
  This isn’t a regulation about how business can be operated. Yes it is risk, and it is punishing someone for already being on the losing end of that risk. It’s like taxing startups for not having found product-market fit and not making sales. Do you support that?
  - camgunz 4y ago
    It's not like that, unless your startup is hogging a scarce, universal human need.
    - voisin 4y ago
      > unless your startup is hogging a scarce, universal human need. Like talented engineers that could be put to other social use, just like those empty buildings?
      - camgunz 4y ago
        You know, call me an optimist but I think humanity could muddle through without us SWEs. But, kinda do need that housing though. Confident 10/10 people would choose house over software engineer. Especially anyone whose identity was stolen in a breach, whose kids are addicted to or victimized by social media, or scammed by crypto, etc etc etc.

by voisin 4y ago

jasonpeacock 4y ago

The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. There is plenty the landlord can control. What this tax does is say the landlord can't just sit on empty properties without penalty. Heck, the landlord could even work collectively with society to make the area viable for tenants!

voisin 4y ago
> The landlord can move into the property themselves, sell the property, or make the property more appealing to rent. The Landlord occupying vast swathes of vacant space in its portfolio is the same as it being vacant. You realize landlords don’t have 1 employee for every employee it’s tenant has, right? That doesn’t scale. Selling just transfers the issue to someone else. Making the property more appealing isn’t as groundbreaking a proposition as you might think it is. Every landlord with vacancies in the country is trying to do just that. Implicit in your entire statement is that somehow Landlords are choosing to keep space vacant, against their own business interests, to… what? Spite the community? It makes no sense what you are saying. They are being punished with this tax while already paying property taxes, utilities, security, maintenance, etc, when the issue is that a pandemic hit and everyone started working from home. Now they should be punished with another tax because the angry masses want to shift the tax burden to them. Democracy at its worst.
- arretevad 4y ago
  Selling doesn’t transfer the “issue” to someone else. It houses someone in need.

camgunz 4y ago

All kinds of industries have regulations. You can't go into the medical devices industry and get super pissed at the FDA when they tell you you can't sell your stuff without their approval. You could argue "hey it's my property and I'll sell it if I want to", but that won't work and for good reason. Becoming a landlord is going into business, and there are regulations and risk. Sometimes you go bust. That's life. If you picked up a property that's somehow unrentable in SF you should sell tickets, I'm sure a lot of people would love to see what kind of insane hellhole you couldn't get someone to rent for even $1 to avoid the tax.

voisin 4y ago
This isn’t a regulation about how business can be operated. Yes it is risk, and it is punishing someone for already being on the losing end of that risk. It’s like taxing startups for not having found product-market fit and not making sales. Do you support that?
- camgunz 4y ago
  It's not like that, unless your startup is hogging a scarce, universal human need.
  - voisin 4y ago
    > unless your startup is hogging a scarce, universal human need. Like talented engineers that could be put to other social use, just like those empty buildings?
    - camgunz 4y ago
      You know, call me an optimist but I think humanity could muddle through without us SWEs. But, kinda do need that housing though. Confident 10/10 people would choose house over software engineer. Especially anyone whose identity was stolen in a breach, whose kids are addicted to or victimized by social media, or scammed by crypto, etc etc etc.