8 ms·

The solution might be to tax second-home owners heavily, and use those funds to fund affordable housing. I visited Maui recently and was surprised to see the n

The solution might be to tax second-home owners heavily, and use those funds to fund affordable housing. I visited Maui recently and was surprised to see the number of resorts over there, and the large single-family homes. TBH, after visiting and enjoying the beaches, I was thinking that it would be nice to have a vacation home there. The wife didn't like the idea, so I dropped it. But now I agree with the concerns being expressed by the displaced residents. I think it would be better to rebuild with more dense housing, and more affordable housing. Use this opportunity to put down 5-6 story high buildings with 2-3BR apartments that are affordable. Use eminent domain if you must to get the land. And tax vacation homes heavily: if you don't live in your house at least 240 days a year (roughly, 8 months), then your property taxes will be 10% of the house's appraised value. Use that money for the upkeep of the affordable housing and to build more affordable housing.

giantg2 3y ago
Fuck eminent domain. Although I guess that's loosely in keeping with the history of how the native lands were treated.
DocTomoe 3y ago
> Use this opportunity to put down 5-6 story high buildings with 2-3BR apartments that are affordable. Use eminent domain if you must to get the land. So you essentially want to transform a place that is attractive into another slum so that crime can go up and attractiveness sinks, while trampling the rights of homeowners that may have lived there for generations? Sounds like a great idea.
- mavelikara 3y ago
  > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - DocTomoe 3y ago
    And yet, wherever we see population density increasing programs implemented like the one OP suggests, we see crime rates increase and a slumification of the area. I think in this case, I am not erecting and burning a straw man, I am pointing out the most likely consequence of a policy which I do believe OP suggested in good faith, but did not think through the consequences.
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      You're right, of course. What the OP was suggesting has been tried many times before. They were called "the projects".
FireBeyond 3y ago
> And tax vacation homes heavily: if you don't live in your house at least 240 days a year (roughly, 8 months), then your property taxes will be 10% of the house's appraised value. This has been tried. The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax.
- 1024core 3y ago
  I would not be too sure about that. 10% of 2M is still $200K/year; enough to subsidize the housing for 10 families.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    No, I mean if you're happy buying 7 digit properties just to have available to you a miniscule amount of time, then you probably won't be dissuaded by some higher property taxes.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  10% isn't the only valid number. If that's not enough to disincentivize bad behavior, then change the number. It's "just" a matter political will. Get creative: Maybe the tax rate should be proportional to the number of days per year the property is unoccupied. If they live in it year-round, their property tax is the minimum. For every day of the year the property is vacant, tax rate goes up by 0.1% or something. Or, maybe their tax rate should be proportional to the number of properties they own. Own one property, and they get the minimum rate. Double the tax rate for every additional property they own and let exponents do their job. For some reason, discussions about solving these problems often boil down to "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  > The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax. So, why is that a problem? That's a lot of extra tax money for the city to work with to solve the overall problem from the other end. If that is the only issue, they should do this yesterday.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
Maybe you should think about the people who are there suffering before you come up with ideas for THEIR property. Their homes are still smoldering and you just CANNOT WAIT to dream up miserable solutions they don't want and never asked for. House burned down? Be a shame if we stole your land to put up shitty little apartments that cost more than your mortgage and charge you to live there in perpetuity.
brightball 3y ago
I visited Maui last year and did the Road to Hana drive using an app that somebody recommended. Gypsy Tour Guide or something along those lines. Anyway, it uses GPS combined with recorded narratives to guide you on the trip. It was pretty cool. Gets into the history of Hawaii and everything. Apparently there is a significant feeling among natives about their island being taken over. If a disaster like this leads to more of it, it's only going to get worse. There's already tons of speculation about the cause and area of this one.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
How about Hawaii [1] find a way to rebuild all the homes lost so that none of those residents have to lose out? That would be the ideal. That would be fair. [1] The Hawaiian people, government, insurance, etc.

giantg2 3y ago

Fuck eminent domain. Although I guess that's loosely in keeping with the history of how the native lands were treated.

DocTomoe 3y ago

> Use this opportunity to put down 5-6 story high buildings with 2-3BR apartments that are affordable. Use eminent domain if you must to get the land. So you essentially want to transform a place that is attractive into another slum so that crime can go up and attractiveness sinks, while trampling the rights of homeowners that may have lived there for generations? Sounds like a great idea.

mavelikara 3y ago
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- DocTomoe 3y ago
  And yet, wherever we see population density increasing programs implemented like the one OP suggests, we see crime rates increase and a slumification of the area. I think in this case, I am not erecting and burning a straw man, I am pointing out the most likely consequence of a policy which I do believe OP suggested in good faith, but did not think through the consequences.
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    You're right, of course. What the OP was suggesting has been tried many times before. They were called "the projects".

FireBeyond 3y ago

> And tax vacation homes heavily: if you don't live in your house at least 240 days a year (roughly, 8 months), then your property taxes will be 10% of the house's appraised value. This has been tried. The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax.

1024core 3y ago
I would not be too sure about that. 10% of 2M is still $200K/year; enough to subsidize the housing for 10 families.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  No, I mean if you're happy buying 7 digit properties just to have available to you a miniscule amount of time, then you probably won't be dissuaded by some higher property taxes.
ryandrake 3y ago
10% isn't the only valid number. If that's not enough to disincentivize bad behavior, then change the number. It's "just" a matter political will. Get creative: Maybe the tax rate should be proportional to the number of days per year the property is unoccupied. If they live in it year-round, their property tax is the minimum. For every day of the year the property is vacant, tax rate goes up by 0.1% or something. Or, maybe their tax rate should be proportional to the number of properties they own. Own one property, and they get the minimum rate. Double the tax rate for every additional property they own and let exponents do their job. For some reason, discussions about solving these problems often boil down to "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
> The problem is, the people who can afford to drop $2M+ on house and land for a home they barely visit are not going to be phased by a 10% value tax. So, why is that a problem? That's a lot of extra tax money for the city to work with to solve the overall problem from the other end. If that is the only issue, they should do this yesterday.

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

Maybe you should think about the people who are there suffering before you come up with ideas for THEIR property. Their homes are still smoldering and you just CANNOT WAIT to dream up miserable solutions they don't want and never asked for. House burned down? Be a shame if we stole your land to put up shitty little apartments that cost more than your mortgage and charge you to live there in perpetuity.

brightball 3y ago

I visited Maui last year and did the Road to Hana drive using an app that somebody recommended. Gypsy Tour Guide or something along those lines. Anyway, it uses GPS combined with recorded narratives to guide you on the trip. It was pretty cool. Gets into the history of Hawaii and everything. Apparently there is a significant feeling among natives about their island being taken over. If a disaster like this leads to more of it, it's only going to get worse. There's already tons of speculation about the cause and area of this one.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

How about Hawaii [1] find a way to rebuild all the homes lost so that none of those residents have to lose out? That would be the ideal. That would be fair. [1] The Hawaiian people, government, insurance, etc.