> 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 ch

> 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.