3 ms·

Some 10-15% of San Francisco housing is unoccupied. The exact why and how to fix it are arguable, but I'm doubtful the investment is actually helping. https://

by kurthr 4mo ago

Some 10-15% of San Francisco housing is unoccupied. The exact why and how to fix it are arguable, but I'm doubtful the investment is actually helping. https://www.pacificresearch.org/time-to-ask-why-so-many-san-francisco-homes-are-vacant/ https://www.pacificresearch.org/time-to-ask-why-so-many-san-...

BobbyJo 4mo ago
When a good's supply is constrained, it becomes a store of value. See: gold. Strangely enough, if housing got built in response to price increases, there would likely be less unused housing, because it would be seen less as a way to store capital.
- roenxi 4mo ago
  > When a good's supply is constrained, it becomes a store of value. See: gold. That doesn't make sense as stated, because every physical commodity is supply-constrained to some extent, even and especially the ones that are extremely bad stores of value. Picking on Fermium (it has a nice atomic number) - Fermium is supply constrained and it makes a horrible store of value because it rapidly morphs into something else. Gold is a well-liked store of value because it is absurdly stable (about as close as we can practically get to indestructible) and roughly the easiest to physically store out of all the durable candidates.
  - uniqueusername7 4mo ago
    While houses depreciate, both they and the ground they are built on tend to have a very low chance of experiencing spontaneous transmutation, so I'm not sure how good of an example fermium is.
    - microgpt 4mo ago
      What if we added some kind of artificial spontaneous transmutation to housing? Maybe (this is really dumb but bear with me) every year 200 randomly chosen houses become the property of whoever is living in them at a random moment. What would happen?
- pydry 4mo ago
  When property taxes are higher housing is built more densely. This is because the store of value quickly becomes a millstone around the owner's neck if it isnt being used efficiently. That's a feature if you want a healthy city and a bug if you're one of the ultra wealthy. The UK is a bit like San Francisco in this respect. There are no property taxes, just something called a council tax (which is basically a poll tax) and "stamp duty" which is levied only on property transactions. The latter is particularly toxic because it actively encourages property hoarding. This is why London is an alpha world+ city which can't build up to save its life.
  - dripdry45 4mo ago
    imo The big key here is zoning. I live in a city where they actively work against people who want to build out their properties and create more density. The property taxes are sky high, but the city actively works against your affording them. It’s terrible.
    - pydry 4mo ago
      How high is sky high?
      - Schiendelman 4mo ago
        The real answer is rough: By giving the public any say at all, they push and push until they have restricted growth. It's far better for everyone to not ask anyone but the owner of the property how tall they want to build.
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    Competition was supposed to save this though. You have to use it effectively otherwise your neighboring competitor takes all your customers.
fragmede 4mo ago
Taxing empty housing seems like the obvious answer. Make it more expensive and more work to keep it empty than it is to fill it.
- microgpt 4mo ago
  Which form do I file to claim that my empty house is not actually empty?
  - Obscurity4340 4mo ago
    Maybe demand the electricity bill? How do insurance companies deal with this kind of misrepresentation?
    - microgpt 4mo ago
      They just refuse to pay out if it seems like you lied. They don't enforce everything before a claim is filed.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  This wouldn't be necessary if we weren't using zoning to restrict supply. The restrictions are what cause scarcity, and it's the scarcity that drives up prices. Land owners are already well incentivized not to let housing sit empty, unless their housing's value is being artificially pushed upward through the scarcity we create. Basically, if we quit creating the housing problem with zoning restrictions, you wouldn't see housing sit empty, and it wouldn't matter anyway because the motivated self-interest of FAR more people would build housing to meet demand.
  - fragmede 4mo ago
    Having had a second to think, it's rent control that's the issue, so the solution would be to get rid of that. Totally politically untenable, but rent control is why landlords are incentivized to leave places vacant.
khuey 4mo ago
https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-vacant-homes-in-san-francisco.html https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-...
- jstanley 4mo ago
  The table in the article seems to contradict its own headline. The headline says there are not 40k vacant homes, but the table breaks down the reasons for vacancy of just a bit over 40k homes. So it sounds to me like there are in fact 40k vacant homes. And it goes on to say: > Yes, 40,458 units of housing in San Francisco were classified as “vacant” in the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019. However it also says: > an occupied unit is actually classified as “vacant” for the purposes of the ACS if the person living in the unit is planning to move within two months of being surveyed But this doesn't appear to match any of the categories that sum to 40458, so I am not sure if this is even applicable.
legitster 4mo ago
2 things: - this article is out of date. The market has changed a lot since the AI boom. - That's a 10%ish of all housing in the city. Right now, of available units SF has one of the smallest vacancy rates in the country right now. The difference is (as the article alludes), apartments that are undergoing renovations, not currently permitted, etc.

by kurthr 4mo ago

BobbyJo 4mo ago

When a good's supply is constrained, it becomes a store of value. See: gold. Strangely enough, if housing got built in response to price increases, there would likely be less unused housing, because it would be seen less as a way to store capital.

roenxi 4mo ago
> When a good's supply is constrained, it becomes a store of value. See: gold. That doesn't make sense as stated, because every physical commodity is supply-constrained to some extent, even and especially the ones that are extremely bad stores of value. Picking on Fermium (it has a nice atomic number) - Fermium is supply constrained and it makes a horrible store of value because it rapidly morphs into something else. Gold is a well-liked store of value because it is absurdly stable (about as close as we can practically get to indestructible) and roughly the easiest to physically store out of all the durable candidates.
- uniqueusername7 4mo ago
  While houses depreciate, both they and the ground they are built on tend to have a very low chance of experiencing spontaneous transmutation, so I'm not sure how good of an example fermium is.
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    What if we added some kind of artificial spontaneous transmutation to housing? Maybe (this is really dumb but bear with me) every year 200 randomly chosen houses become the property of whoever is living in them at a random moment. What would happen?
pydry 4mo ago
When property taxes are higher housing is built more densely. This is because the store of value quickly becomes a millstone around the owner's neck if it isnt being used efficiently. That's a feature if you want a healthy city and a bug if you're one of the ultra wealthy. The UK is a bit like San Francisco in this respect. There are no property taxes, just something called a council tax (which is basically a poll tax) and "stamp duty" which is levied only on property transactions. The latter is particularly toxic because it actively encourages property hoarding. This is why London is an alpha world+ city which can't build up to save its life.
- dripdry45 4mo ago
  imo The big key here is zoning. I live in a city where they actively work against people who want to build out their properties and create more density. The property taxes are sky high, but the city actively works against your affording them. It’s terrible.
  - pydry 4mo ago
    How high is sky high?
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      The real answer is rough: By giving the public any say at all, they push and push until they have restricted growth. It's far better for everyone to not ask anyone but the owner of the property how tall they want to build.
- microgpt 4mo ago
  Competition was supposed to save this though. You have to use it effectively otherwise your neighboring competitor takes all your customers.

fragmede 4mo ago

Taxing empty housing seems like the obvious answer. Make it more expensive and more work to keep it empty than it is to fill it.

microgpt 4mo ago
Which form do I file to claim that my empty house is not actually empty?
- Obscurity4340 4mo ago
  Maybe demand the electricity bill? How do insurance companies deal with this kind of misrepresentation?
  - microgpt 4mo ago
    They just refuse to pay out if it seems like you lied. They don't enforce everything before a claim is filed.
Schiendelman 4mo ago
This wouldn't be necessary if we weren't using zoning to restrict supply. The restrictions are what cause scarcity, and it's the scarcity that drives up prices. Land owners are already well incentivized not to let housing sit empty, unless their housing's value is being artificially pushed upward through the scarcity we create. Basically, if we quit creating the housing problem with zoning restrictions, you wouldn't see housing sit empty, and it wouldn't matter anyway because the motivated self-interest of FAR more people would build housing to meet demand.
- fragmede 4mo ago
  Having had a second to think, it's rent control that's the issue, so the solution would be to get rid of that. Totally politically untenable, but rent control is why landlords are incentivized to leave places vacant.

khuey 4mo ago

https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-vacant-homes-in-san-francisco.html https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-...

jstanley 4mo ago
The table in the article seems to contradict its own headline. The headline says there are not 40k vacant homes, but the table breaks down the reasons for vacancy of just a bit over 40k homes. So it sounds to me like there are in fact 40k vacant homes. And it goes on to say: > Yes, 40,458 units of housing in San Francisco were classified as “vacant” in the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019. However it also says: > an occupied unit is actually classified as “vacant” for the purposes of the ACS if the person living in the unit is planning to move within two months of being surveyed But this doesn't appear to match any of the categories that sum to 40458, so I am not sure if this is even applicable.

legitster 4mo ago

2 things: - this article is out of date. The market has changed a lot since the AI boom. - That's a 10%ish of all housing in the city. Right now, of available units SF has one of the smallest vacancy rates in the country right now. The difference is (as the article alludes), apartments that are undergoing renovations, not currently permitted, etc.