Vacancy Tax

[Jolly]

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/amp/how-many-vacant-homes-are-there-in-San-Francisco-16822916.php

[George K]

That which cannot continue will not.

[Mik]

A tax on using your property as you see fit. Cannot say I favor it, regardless of the benefit.

What's the next thing that bypasses property and/or personal rights?

[LuFins Dad]

Actually, this is something that I can understand and support for multiple reasons. Now I think there are multiple aspects that need to be considered and allowances made and I don’t trust San Francisco to manage it well, but yes, I can get behind this idea.

[George K]

Presumably these properties are vacant because the cost to rent/purchase is too high. When I was in San Francisco in 2014, a one-bedroom apartment was $3000/month in a reasonable part of town.

So, how is a "tax," which will only increase the cost to rent/buy solve the vacancy problem?

[LuFins Dad]

For one thing, there are multiple investment companies buying up houses, outbidding the private buyer by going way over asking price, and letting the house sit and accrue value. Not only is that manipulating the real estate market, it’s also defeating the reason the cities gave the permits for the construction in the first place.

[Jolly]

@lufins-dad said in Vacancy Tax:

Actually, this is something that I can understand and support for multiple reasons. Now I think there are multiple aspects that need to be considered and allowances made and I don’t trust San Francisco to manage it well, but yes, I can get behind this idea.

I agree.

[xenon]

San Francisco will never be affordable for people without high paying jobs. It's a 7x7mi parcel of land.

The real issue with the Bay Area is that all the surrounding municipalities want to zone for businesses, and no one wants to invest in the infrastructure and services for dense residential (maybe only San Jose punches above its weight a bit).

San Francisco can't solve the price of housing in San Francisco. It's a city of 800k in a region of 8M.

[LuFins Dad]

@george-k said in Vacancy Tax:

Presumably these properties are vacant because the cost to rent/purchase is too high. When I was in San Francisco in 2014, a one-bedroom apartment was $3000/month in a reasonable part of town.

So, how is a "tax," which will only increase the cost to rent/buy solve the vacancy problem?

George, we cross-posted. I wasn't replying to this.

If we're looking at the rental/landlord market, then they have multiple choices. They can continue to leave the property vacant, they can lower the rent to what the market will bear, or they can sell the property for what the market will bear. Those may be bad choices. Perhaps the rental price or selling price will be a loss for the landlord/investor. So sorry to hear that. Sounds like it turned out to be a bad investment. You're going to have that. Their real estate market NEEDS a correction. That's going to suck for quite a few people. Oh well. They chose to invest in that market.

At the end of the day, I fully expect the tax to drive the pricing down, frankly. It is going to be in the best interest of the owners to either get tenants or sell the property...