3 ms·

Rent it out to strangers, let friends live there for free if you want. Do anything other than letting a home sit vacant when there are tons of unhoused people s

by crmd 3y ago

Rent it out to strangers, let friends live there for free if you want. Do anything other than letting a home sit vacant when there are tons of unhoused people sleeping in the street.

mozman 3y ago
renters are a liability.
- ajross 3y ago
  So are taxes and trees, but you have to pay them and hold insurance anyway. The point is that society as a whole has interest in the community in which that home exists, and it regulates the behavior of homeowners for the benefit of everyone. "Your home has to have people in it" is, 100%, a valid policy goal. And in extremis, paradigms like adverse possession exist to ensure this.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    I'm sorry, how do taxes or trees destroy the value of a property? Tenants absolutely can ruin a house. Imagine the surprise when you find out the tenants have done more damage to a property than their rent covers. Yes, people need and should be housed. No, that doesn't mean they need _my_ house. Build up public housing resources. If the govt wants to buy my property at market rate and give it away, and I agree to sell, go for it. Otherwise, I hear you have a good retirement fund that you spent years building. I didn't didn't do that, so just give me half of what you saved and we will call it fair.
    - nmfisher 3y ago
      The reasonable compromise is to heavily tax vacant properties and spend the revenue building public housing.
      - mozman 3y ago
        We need to improve our mental health care system and get these people working, so they can rent. There isnt a shortage of homes, just a shortage of money to pay rent.
        nmfisher 3y ago
        In my home country (Australia), there literally is a shortage of homes at the moment. I don't think a vacancy tax would help much, but it's probably a good idea anyway.
        mozman 3y ago
        I can't agree with more taxes "just it's because it's a good idea". I pay a lot of money every year in tax, I don't need to pay more.
        nmfisher 3y ago
        Then don't leave your property vacant?
        mozman 3y ago
        My financial decisions are nobody else's business. A lot of people here earn a lot in software, and if they want a summer home that is their prerogative. The group think on this is hard.
sethammons 3y ago
I love extending arguments to logical absurdity to see where they fall apart. I have an airbrush my mom gave me when I was a teen. It has sentimental value. I've not used it in 20 years. Should I be forced to sell or rent it out? Or my MRE (Meals Ready To Eat) collection is over 10 years old now. Should I be forced to sell them to the hungry? How is that different than real estate? All resources are scarce including life saving medical tech. Do you force redistribution on all resources and assets?
- ajross 3y ago
  With all respect: what you're employing is a good dictionary definition for a glibertarian argument. "The government shouldn't make a rule because at it's 'logical absurdity' the argument falls apart" is in more typical terminology a absolutely ridiculous strawman. You obviously don't seize obscure collectibles because there's limited public interest in such a collection. But that too has limits at the "logical absurdity" extreme: you might seize a historical artifact or painting from a private collector because it was looted from a museum 90 years ago before re-entering the private market after a few decades. And, yeah, you might seize an abandoned property to prevent the community it's in from decaying.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    Abandoned. I think that is the delineation. Great point! I feel that if you can show something is abandoned, it can be up for grabs, including my personal property. Now to define "abandoned." In my home town, a potentially lucrative piece of real estate was fenced and not maintained because the owner was pissed at the city. The only reason they held it was because "fuck you city." I could see an argument as saying that it is abandoned and should be forced to be used. I can also see that as free speech because the owner was making a statement about local ordinances. Is it abandoned or an active political statement?
    - brewdad 3y ago
      I see an argument for the addition of the fence as "improving" the property and therefore showing that it has not been abandoned. Aside from the obvious goal of keeping out trespassers, I'd be willing to bet the fence was added based on legal advice. In a few years there will probably need to be some further "improvement". Perhaps as simple as replacing the fence.
oh_sigh 3y ago
Less than 0.2% of the population is homeless. And many of them would probably have a place to stay(with family or friends) if they were capable of successfully living in a house.

by crmd 3y ago

Rent it out to strangers, let friends live there for free if you want. Do anything other than letting a home sit vacant when there are tons of unhoused people sleeping in the street.

mozman 3y ago

renters are a liability.

ajross 3y ago
So are taxes and trees, but you have to pay them and hold insurance anyway. The point is that society as a whole has interest in the community in which that home exists, and it regulates the behavior of homeowners for the benefit of everyone. "Your home has to have people in it" is, 100%, a valid policy goal. And in extremis, paradigms like adverse possession exist to ensure this.
- sethammons 3y ago
  I'm sorry, how do taxes or trees destroy the value of a property? Tenants absolutely can ruin a house. Imagine the surprise when you find out the tenants have done more damage to a property than their rent covers. Yes, people need and should be housed. No, that doesn't mean they need _my_ house. Build up public housing resources. If the govt wants to buy my property at market rate and give it away, and I agree to sell, go for it. Otherwise, I hear you have a good retirement fund that you spent years building. I didn't didn't do that, so just give me half of what you saved and we will call it fair.
  - nmfisher 3y ago
    The reasonable compromise is to heavily tax vacant properties and spend the revenue building public housing.
    - mozman 3y ago
      We need to improve our mental health care system and get these people working, so they can rent. There isnt a shortage of homes, just a shortage of money to pay rent.
      - nmfisher 3y ago
        In my home country (Australia), there literally is a shortage of homes at the moment. I don't think a vacancy tax would help much, but it's probably a good idea anyway.
        mozman 3y ago
        I can't agree with more taxes "just it's because it's a good idea". I pay a lot of money every year in tax, I don't need to pay more.
        nmfisher 3y ago
        Then don't leave your property vacant?
        mozman 3y ago
        My financial decisions are nobody else's business. A lot of people here earn a lot in software, and if they want a summer home that is their prerogative. The group think on this is hard.

sethammons 3y ago

I love extending arguments to logical absurdity to see where they fall apart. I have an airbrush my mom gave me when I was a teen. It has sentimental value. I've not used it in 20 years. Should I be forced to sell or rent it out? Or my MRE (Meals Ready To Eat) collection is over 10 years old now. Should I be forced to sell them to the hungry? How is that different than real estate? All resources are scarce including life saving medical tech. Do you force redistribution on all resources and assets?

ajross 3y ago
With all respect: what you're employing is a good dictionary definition for a glibertarian argument. "The government shouldn't make a rule because at it's 'logical absurdity' the argument falls apart" is in more typical terminology a absolutely ridiculous strawman. You obviously don't seize obscure collectibles because there's limited public interest in such a collection. But that too has limits at the "logical absurdity" extreme: you might seize a historical artifact or painting from a private collector because it was looted from a museum 90 years ago before re-entering the private market after a few decades. And, yeah, you might seize an abandoned property to prevent the community it's in from decaying.
- sethammons 3y ago
  Abandoned. I think that is the delineation. Great point! I feel that if you can show something is abandoned, it can be up for grabs, including my personal property. Now to define "abandoned." In my home town, a potentially lucrative piece of real estate was fenced and not maintained because the owner was pissed at the city. The only reason they held it was because "fuck you city." I could see an argument as saying that it is abandoned and should be forced to be used. I can also see that as free speech because the owner was making a statement about local ordinances. Is it abandoned or an active political statement?
  - brewdad 3y ago
    I see an argument for the addition of the fence as "improving" the property and therefore showing that it has not been abandoned. Aside from the obvious goal of keeping out trespassers, I'd be willing to bet the fence was added based on legal advice. In a few years there will probably need to be some further "improvement". Perhaps as simple as replacing the fence.

oh_sigh 3y ago

Less than 0.2% of the population is homeless. And many of them would probably have a place to stay(with family or friends) if they were capable of successfully living in a house.