3 ms·

> A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. A thought: Disincentivize having them for sale for too

> A lot of houses are empty simply because they are for sale. It's not unusual to take 6 months to sell. A thought: Disincentivize having them for sale for too long, tax a % of the listing price every year it's on the market. That way gougers get penalized for crazy asking prices and there's some additional negative price pressure.

iteria 2y ago
All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.
- joecool1029 2y ago
  > All that would result in is less transparency. Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. > Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals. This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. How will you do that. Remember: "I wasn't planning to sell my old house at all, but when I got this offer out of the blue I decided to take it".
thelastgallon 2y ago
They are already paying mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, utilities and maintenance.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. There's also the risk of squatters, vandals, thieves, and partyers.
  - joecool1029 2y ago
    >Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. I'd argue it's not expensive enough since it's frequently done. EDIT: This has already become a common issue in locations like NYC, big money parked into properties with many commercial and residential units vacant. Better to pass those fees and borrow against artificially inflated value than it is to realize a loss. EDIT2: I typo'd and meant to say 'pay', not pass those fees. (as a cost of doing business) Commenting on Walter's comment below: > I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money. I understand, my problems are with institutional/large wealth artificially constraining supply. > As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value. Do correct me if I'm wrong but is it really their problem if they can sell that risk or the gov bails the whole sector out when there's a panic?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money. > Better to pass those fees to whom? > and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss. Borrowing does nothing to stop one from losing money. As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value.

iteria 2y ago

All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.

joecool1029 2y ago
> All that would result in is less transparency. Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. > Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals. This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.
- bluGill 2y ago
  > Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved. How will you do that. Remember: "I wasn't planning to sell my old house at all, but when I got this offer out of the blue I decided to take it".

thelastgallon 2y ago

They are already paying mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, utilities and maintenance.

WalterBright 2y ago
Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. There's also the risk of squatters, vandals, thieves, and partyers.
- joecool1029 2y ago
  >Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. I'd argue it's not expensive enough since it's frequently done. EDIT: This has already become a common issue in locations like NYC, big money parked into properties with many commercial and residential units vacant. Better to pass those fees and borrow against artificially inflated value than it is to realize a loss. EDIT2: I typo'd and meant to say 'pay', not pass those fees. (as a cost of doing business) Commenting on Walter's comment below: > I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money. I understand, my problems are with institutional/large wealth artificially constraining supply. > As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value. Do correct me if I'm wrong but is it really their problem if they can sell that risk or the gov bails the whole sector out when there's a panic?
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money. > Better to pass those fees to whom? > and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss. Borrowing does nothing to stop one from losing money. As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value.