3 ms·

I see these first two arguments very often in online discourse but I've yet to have the zoning thing really explained. Zoning isn't why we have millions upon mi

I see these first two arguments very often in online discourse but I've yet to have the zoning thing really explained. Zoning isn't why we have millions upon millions of homes sitting empty, it's the second one you've listed: that homes are treated as financial assets first, and a requirement for a life well lived second. So fair enough, then let's stop that. Tax the absolute hell out of vacant homes at rates so high it's financially disastrous to hold them as assets. Then the price of homes will crash as corporate landlords/holders dump stock to avoid the bill.

whimsicalism 3y ago
Millions of homes are sitting empty because they are in places people don't want to live or don't have jobs that allow them to afford their lives. > Tax the absolute hell out of vacant homes at rates so high it's financially disastrous to hold them as assets Higher taxes on homes - regardless of the action being taxed, will not get you to where we need to be on housing unless they are paired with subsidies. We already are not building enough of them, we should not be imposing higher costs unless we are prepared to offset it elsewhere. Vacancy taxes might be part of the solution, but they also encourage sparser living to occupy more homes simultaneously.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > Millions of homes are sitting empty because they are in places people don't want to live or don't have jobs that allow them to afford their lives. I have a feeling it's much more the second than the first there. I know some people are picky but I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. > Higher taxes on homes - regardless of the action being taxed, will not get you to where we need to be on housing unless they are paired with subsidies. I'm proposing higher taxes on houses, not homes. The difference being the former is held as stock to be sold later, and the latter is lived within by it's owner (or someone who has a business relationship with the owner.) > We already are not building enough of them, we should not be imposing higher costs unless we are prepared to offset it elsewhere. In what way in your mind is someone under my suggestion spending more money to build a home? > Vacancy taxes might be part of the solution That's literally what I've suggested. Taxing homes that are vacant.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    > I have a feeling it's much more the second than the first there. I know some people are picky but I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. People need and want to live in a place where it is affordable for them to live. That includes the costs of provisioning services and the jobs available to them. People will obviously pick homelessness in the city (where they can access services) over literally not being able to have food in the places lots of these houses are (because you need a car to access services and services are sparse/nonexistent). > The difference being the former is held as stock to be sold later, and the latter is lived within by it's owner (or someone who has a business relationship with the owner.) When a house is constructed or sold it is definitionally being held to be sold later, so your suggestion would just impose costs on new construction. > That's literally what I've suggested. Taxing homes that are vacant. Right, and this was the part where I was agreeing with you. But vacancy taxes have been shown to be insufficient at increasing the number of people housed.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    > I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. Then you have not met many homeless. In my experience the vast majority of homeless in big cities would say no if offered a place to live in kansas.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      I mean a place to live doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere for them to work to earn a living to afford it, not to mention being able to commute in a rural area basically requires a car of some sort. Homeless congregate to cities because they can get the widest exposure to panhandle on. This isn't complicated. If you have no income apart from what's given to you, you need to be in places where a lot of people are a lot of the time to maximize your income. I'm sure plenty of them would happily move to a different area, if they're given the tools and resources to build a life there. But we don't do that. We just sick the cops on them and burn whatever they've managed to cobble together and tell them to go somewhere else. They might, MIGHT, get a bus ticket. But that's it and that solves none of their problems, it just makes them a problem for a different metro.

whimsicalism 3y ago

Millions of homes are sitting empty because they are in places people don't want to live or don't have jobs that allow them to afford their lives. > Tax the absolute hell out of vacant homes at rates so high it's financially disastrous to hold them as assets Higher taxes on homes - regardless of the action being taxed, will not get you to where we need to be on housing unless they are paired with subsidies. We already are not building enough of them, we should not be imposing higher costs unless we are prepared to offset it elsewhere. Vacancy taxes might be part of the solution, but they also encourage sparser living to occupy more homes simultaneously.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> Millions of homes are sitting empty because they are in places people don't want to live or don't have jobs that allow them to afford their lives. I have a feeling it's much more the second than the first there. I know some people are picky but I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. > Higher taxes on homes - regardless of the action being taxed, will not get you to where we need to be on housing unless they are paired with subsidies. I'm proposing higher taxes on houses, not homes. The difference being the former is held as stock to be sold later, and the latter is lived within by it's owner (or someone who has a business relationship with the owner.) > We already are not building enough of them, we should not be imposing higher costs unless we are prepared to offset it elsewhere. In what way in your mind is someone under my suggestion spending more money to build a home? > Vacancy taxes might be part of the solution That's literally what I've suggested. Taxing homes that are vacant.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  > I have a feeling it's much more the second than the first there. I know some people are picky but I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. People need and want to live in a place where it is affordable for them to live. That includes the costs of provisioning services and the jobs available to them. People will obviously pick homelessness in the city (where they can access services) over literally not being able to have food in the places lots of these houses are (because you need a car to access services and services are sparse/nonexistent). > The difference being the former is held as stock to be sold later, and the latter is lived within by it's owner (or someone who has a business relationship with the owner.) When a house is constructed or sold it is definitionally being held to be sold later, so your suggestion would just impose costs on new construction. > That's literally what I've suggested. Taxing homes that are vacant. Right, and this was the part where I was agreeing with you. But vacancy taxes have been shown to be insufficient at increasing the number of people housed.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  > I have a hard time imagining a person who would willingly choose homelessness because they're just that committed to a given area. Then you have not met many homeless. In my experience the vast majority of homeless in big cities would say no if offered a place to live in kansas.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    I mean a place to live doesn't mean anything if there's nowhere for them to work to earn a living to afford it, not to mention being able to commute in a rural area basically requires a car of some sort. Homeless congregate to cities because they can get the widest exposure to panhandle on. This isn't complicated. If you have no income apart from what's given to you, you need to be in places where a lot of people are a lot of the time to maximize your income. I'm sure plenty of them would happily move to a different area, if they're given the tools and resources to build a life there. But we don't do that. We just sick the cops on them and burn whatever they've managed to cobble together and tell them to go somewhere else. They might, MIGHT, get a bus ticket. But that's it and that solves none of their problems, it just makes them a problem for a different metro.