> There are many landlords leaving units empty precisely because they’re sane and rational. In some cases becauee of a lack of regulation whereas in others beca

> There are many landlords leaving units empty precisely because they’re sane and rational. In some cases becauee of a lack of regulation whereas in others because of over regulation. They're just not. It's silly to not offer your vacant unit for lease at record-high rents 'hoping' that one day rents may be even higher. Every month you're vacant you're losing on $3000+. You really think rent growth can outrun missing out on $3000/month, every month? Every month you wait relies on a rent growth rate of ~9% per month just to break even on a 1-year lease if you have no ability to raise rents. I don't know where this theory comes from, but I can't find any data to support it. When the Berkeley city council passed their tax on vacant units their own analysis indicated that about 1128 units in Berkeley were potentially vacant. Of them only 40% are actually vacant, so about 451 units. Of them, a number are actually being renovated, a number are being rented out without informing the city and about 100 of them are in totally derelict buildings that aren't fit for living in. It's all in the council's assessment on page 2. [1] Berkeley has 46,875 units. So that's a worst case of 2.4% vacancy rate - but more realistically we're talking <1%. The only thing to be done is build more homes. [1] https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-07-26%20Special%20Item%2006%20Placing%20a%20General%20Tax%20Measure.pdf https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022-07...