Well they could fix it in 2 years by this logic
That’s assuming that there’s no such buildings already. That assumption would be extremely incorrect.
Mhhh true. But is this known? At least where I live the municipalities have no real overview over this…
Almost every Realty website I know of will show you how long a house has been on the market, and we could also get data from insurers because you are supposed to let your insurance know if a home is vacant obviously I’m sure some people don’t but it would cause them to look into it more and NAB them on that too
Alright, I am convinced! When do we start?
deleted by creator
And Airbnb. Fuck that company and the people that buy houses and use them for this. My parents live in the mountains in a popular spot for vacations and camping. Nowadays they are the only house on their entire street that isn’t an Airbnb.
Unused housing should be taxed mercilessly.
And single-family homes should have a 100% annual tax on them, unless they are owned by an individual human/family (none of this LLC bullshit) who own only 1 house. Make a 6-month exception for inherited houses just so they can be sold, but otherwise just tax the shit out of them.
Make hoarding housing a liability.
Disagree, my grandfather’s home has set vacant for nearly 4 years now after his passing. The estate cannot be wrapped up due to my estranged uncle not believing the property is worthless.
The county keeps upping the tax assessment, and so he’s convinced it’s worth something and refuses to visit the preoperty.
On paper this is an unused house in reality the roof finally fell in about 6 months after my grandfather died. The county refuses to condem it because they want the tax revenue and my estranged uncle has held up the estate indefinitely with unrealistic expectations.
I wouldn’t say my poor as fuck family deserve a 100% annual tax on the assessed value of a near worthless asset.
I don’t know your country’s laws, but where I live, if it’s not inhabitable it is taxed way lower (and without a roof, it’s definitely not inhabitable)
That’s how it should be, but the county refuses to deem it uninhabitable. They like their tax revenue
I’m not familiar with estate law, but seeing as you state your family is living on a trailer on the land, seems like either there’d be an exception (I don’t see how having essentially unused rooms on a plot of land would be a problem) or there’s some other stuff going on. Maybe if they’re not paying into the estate to rent the land that’d be an issue, but I have no idea how that works for land held in an estate. I wonder if 100% tax would incentivize him to sell? One way or the other either he sells or the land is repossessed because presumably the estate would not be able to cover the tax.
He’s a very stubborn man, and very convinced an asset he’s never seen has tremendous worth. He was apparently very disappointed that my grandfather only had $100 in his checking.
In this proposed scenario, if he does nothing he loses some money (he’s doing pretty well), but then my parents become homeless through his inaction. That seems wrong.
My family lives on the land yes, but ownership of the land belongs only to the estate. No issue with a rent payment since there was never a rent payment prior to my grandfather’s death.
If your family is living on the property I still don’t understand how this applies? The land is in use, occupied by your family, and is not vacant. If it’s zoned for single family, and a single family lives there, it’s not vacant? As far as them not paying rent now, not really sure how that happens, seeing as the land is now owned by the estate, and they are livening on it for free(?). I’m not sure how that’s not just legally considered squatting, unless there’s an agreement for use of the land provided they maintain it in the interim, but again, not an estate lawyer, nor do I know anything about property stuff. But yea, pretty sure the proposal is not relevant to your situation. It’s like considering a property with a mother in law suite vacant unless there suite is also occupied. That’s not the way it would work.
My grandfather’s home is vacant, my parents live in a separate trailer on the property. So that’s the crux isn’t it, what does vacancy mean? Because on paper this property has an occupied trailer and an unoccupied single family home. It’s one “property” but the trailer and home are taxed separately by the county and owned by different people. The county does consider them seperate dwellings, unlike a mother-in-law suite.
The estate lawyer has made it clear there are no issues from my parents living on the property still and there is no expectations of payment. It’s definently not squatting, 50% of the estate does belong to my parents after all.
Thank you for that information. Who would have guessed estate/property law is complicated. I would still suggest there are solutions to this sort of situation than can be reasonably addressed while still honoring the main purpose of the proposal, but I obviously would not be the person to speak on them.
Good luck to your family. I’m sorry you’re dealing with that.
If 50% of the estate belongs to your parents and there’s already a tax entity for the trailer, then in this example they would go to forced arbitration to draw up their portion of the land ownership and get their single family tax rebate, and the other half of the property would be the part that starts getting a vacancy tax. I’d imagine with a timeline like six months there’d be a whole lot of arbitrations in the short term to settle existing arrangements like this one. Honestly I’m curious what the land ownership looks like already for the trailer - if they can legally stay on the estate then there must be a portion of the ground that already legally belongs to them.
No part of the land is directly owned by my parents. It is owned by the estate, which is 50/50 between my parent and my uncle. Trust me if my parents owned the land under their trailer they would be a lot less stressed.
Like I said them continuing to live there is not an issue. Maybe if my uncle pressed it it would become one, but all he wants is 100k +. So he really doesn’t care beyond that.
Unfortunately his wants aren’t compatible with the reality of the situation.
No one has pursued a forced arbitration, and honestly I’m not sure why. Per the lawyer it seems like the property can exist in limbo indefinitely, or at least until one party forces something. It’s a weird stalemate of unrealistic expectations. He wants a lot of money, but also doesn’t want to pay a lawyer himself or do any work. As long as this continues my parents keep their home at least.
On the contrary, a 100% yearly tax from the assesed value of the property, enacted after the property is vacant for 12 months straight, would be a strong motivator for your idiot uncle to actually visit the property, and/or the rest of you to just renounce or disclaim yourselves from ownership of what you described as a near worthless asset, and then let your idiot uncle eat 100% of the improperly assessed value’s vacancy tax.
Elsewhere in this thread you state the house is basically worthless, the land is worth 40k… but idiot uncle thinks both the land and house are worth 200k together, if I read your right.
Organize everyone other than idiot uncle into a plan to disclaim themselves from the inherited property provided the uncle ponies up 40k ( or maybe more if your idiot uncle can be duped into such ), so your parents in the trailer can just buy another plot to park their mobile home, and idiot uncle can deal with his idiocy.
I mean, that seems to be a reasonable plan with or without the proposed vacant property tax, unless there are more complications between the … non idiot uncle parties to the estate.
I don’t know for certain of course as I don’t know your locale, but… you could probably find another plot of land for about 40k?
Idiot uncle thinks its worth over 4x that, so… from his perspective, this would be a steal, to basically gain sole ownership? Let him deal with selling or demo/refurbing the house/land.
… Or have ya’ll already tried something like this, and idiot uncle refused?
What if it caught on fire? An insurance company won’t insure a house without a roof. It has zero value as it is. The land it sits on is still worth something. You should have it appraised with the collapsed roof and see if your taxes go down.
I imagine the options would be to pay the tax or just, I dunno, get rid of the property? You said it’s worthless.
It’s a common problem with estates though even if 4/5 people want to sell it for whatever they can get, that 1 person can keep it in limbo for a very long time. If there wasn’t a will or trust that explicitly gave someone power (and even if there is in some cases), a few years of nothing happening isn’t actually outside the norm.
Sadly, even with a will it can take years to resolve ownership of property after a death.
The house is, the land does has some value even after demolition costs. Basically uncle thinks it’s worth 200,000. In reality it’s worth 40,000, maybe a bit less.
Also my parents have their trailer (does not belong to the estate) on the property. They’d love to settle it, but 1 party refuses.
This plan would actually make my parents homeless as they can’t afford to purchase anything else or rent anywhere near where they live. If they could at least divide the proceeds of the land sale they might be able to afford something. This proposed tax would break them
Based on my experience, you managed to described like every rural estate situation I’ve ever seen. Household living on a trailer towed onto their parents land. That household probably doing a lot to take care of their parents. Then the parents die and suddenly some relative no one has heard from in decades comes along to really screw things up, often from an urban area with zero concept of the market realities of a poorly mantained house on rural land.
I get the whole “hoarding sucks” but it’s really only an urban problem. Go to a rural area and you can find plenty of housing stock for cheap.
I mean, he plainly explained that there’s a son bogging down the estate over the house. He might have said “worthless” but I’m sure it’s more like some land value and essentially zero structure value, so they might want to get a few thousand, while he blocks that transaction holding out for ten-fold. He also asserts the county tax assessments are not consistent with market value, and I think most people who have dealt with tax assessments can relate to the disconnect between realistic market value and tax assessment, one way or the other.
Or even if they did say “fine, you know what, take the property and we’ll take the rest and you can deal with trying to extract the value you think there is”, if he doesn’t agree to that you can’t really force it short of fully disclaiming yourself out of the entire estate. So if the man had $200k in other assets, then that would be an expensive thing to forfeit for the sake of not dealing with a busted house on a bit of land.
6 months to offload a house is not always so easy.
I did a search around the area I grew up that is very rural and I checked 4 properties for sale, two of them under $100k and they’ve been listed for over a year. In urban areas there’s demand, but rural areas commonly have houses just no one wants on land that no one cares about. No distant LLCs want them so they are available, but they aren’t convenient to anything so no one wants them either.
That means they aren’t worth 100k. Forcing people to sell them for their actual value will lower real estate prices nationwide.
There are many cases where you just can’t reduce prices enough to make them sell
- my higher priced town paid Pennies on the dollar for a complex that used to be a mental hospital and housing for various challenged. No developer was willing to pay anything because of lead and asbestos remediation costs. My town was hoping to get EPA funds and didn’t so is saddled with unusable property that it also can’t afford to clean up
- the town I grew up in has been declining for decades. Many houses are well below the cost of cars but still no one willing or able to buy. Last time I checked there seemed to be a floor at $5k but there were multiple habitable houses for $5k, and no buyers
If they’re not worth any money, then the tax burden of sitting on them shouldn’t be high enough to be a problem. But if it is, you can sell them cheap, abandon them to government auction, replat them with neighboring cheap lots do make ag land or a large lot for an industrial or multifamily development, or more.
“I can’t make a bunch of money selling or renting this lot” is not an excuse to just sit on land waiting for the value to go up.
Pricing of homes in food deserts has pretty much zero impact on the housing that could actually help low-income individuals.
The housing situation and relative benefits (and lack therof) to house residents in rural areas is just fundamentally distinct from the urban situation.
I like that this idea also punishes single family home owners for hoarding land. You could build a ton of apartments on a single American-sized sfh lot.
I don’t see that it does that. What do you mean?
That assumes that all land is taxed at a similar value. However my property at 1/5 of an acre in town is worth more than a standard suburban acreage.
I think this continues to discourage living in higher density downtowns where there is walkability and transit, while enocuraging sprawl because large single family suburban lots are cheaper so have lower tax
So those who want to buy a house but can’t afford it are still fucked. Cool.
I think it’s valid to address issues with proposed solutions, especially prior to their implementation. For what it’s worth, their argument is not entirely sound, since most these proposals have built in subsidies for home buyers, but it’s good that they are providing their perspective.
Their “issue” is that they think it doesn’t benefit them personally, and they think everything ought to be about them.
I mean, it’s not just them in that situation, and it seems uncharitable to claim their only concern is self interest. I stand by my original point that it’s important people speak up about how situations affect them, and I’m not sure I’d call that self interested. Since I don’t know them personally, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. Housing as a right is a cornerstone of leftist ideology, so I want to make sure people feel comfortable talking about it openly and debating implementation and bringing up when people might be left behind.
When more homeless people are in public housing, there’s less demand for rentals.
When there’s less demand for rentals, competition falls and rents fall too.
When rents are low, landlording becomes less profitable.
When landlording isn’t profitable, investors move their stock to higher growth assets.
When investors sell their houses, the price to buy a house falls.
To put this in simple terms: a rising tide lifts all ships. Housing the homeless improves the lives of everyone except landlords and billionaires.
That’s great in the short term, but now no one is ever gonna build housing again, so in a generation we’re back to a housing shortage.
If you exclusively try to bring down housing costs by attempting to limit demand, you end up making the problem worse. You need to offer more supply.
i think you mean investor will ever build housing again. Regular people still want nice houses, so we will be back to craft houses built by individuals wishing to express themselves into the abode they live in. To fill the gaps grants can be issues to aid construction for those less well off
So nothing but a sea of suburban sprawl to every horizon? That sounds like hell.
You’re comparing apples and oranges. The apples being the capitalist housing market, and the oranges being the entire housing economy. Across the entire housing economy, demand is the same. It’s just that more of the demand is being met by socialised supply. So no, in terms of the entire housing supply, this proposal doesn’t limit demand.
Across the entire housing economy, demand is the same.
Not over time. Population goes up, and also becomes more concentrated.
Nationalized housing and construction.
That could work, but government run housing tends to become a ghetto, historically.
Thats a symptom not a cause. Gov. Housing usual is used by ppl in poverty. Not the other way around.
Ok, but it doesn’t change the fact that it tends to happen almost every time.
That doesn’t change the fact that it seems to happen almost every time.
The demand for housing isn’t being limited though. The demand for investment property has decreased to be replaced with demand for owned housing. You can still sell a new house. People are still buying houses. I agree with others that worse case, we can bolster development at the federal level, but that doesn’t seem like it will be necessary. Additionally, with declining birth rates and an increase in WFH jobs, less housing will be needed, and people are moving to areas where new construction is not as needed as they are moving into previously abandoned/vacant rural areas. So you won’t be seeing new housing developments there so much as rebuilding.
Your paradigm is in no way connected to the reality of how people are moving. New home construction is going up like crazy in the small cities and towns people move into. To expect a small area to absorb a 50% population increase with little new construction is just not realistic.
And to expect renting to just…end? That sounds like a crazy level of privileged bubble. A huge fraction of the population is not and never will be able to afford homeownership, and expecting the government to fund their home purchases would bankrupt any nation.
You mean like it bankrupted the Soviet Union when they built all that public housing?
In my comment I explicitly stated that there is no need to stop new construction. I do not expect any area to absorb anything. I suggested construction will continue and “additionally” that some areas are being revitalized and will have different needs (rebuilding vs new homes). That’s just true.
I’m not expecting renting to just end. I know people who do not want to own any kind of property and prefer short term rentals. It’s not a sensible goal to force people into owning if they don’t want to.
What does it mean to not be able to afford home ownership? Do you mean they not have enough money for housing in the first place, or do you mean they can just rent? If option one, they are considered homeless and the state should provide housing, if option two, then yes, rent to own should be a real thing. First time home buyers loans exist and the project should be expanded. These are not novel proposals that I just made up. People have been suggesting them for quite a while.
Yeah but expanding those programs on the order you’re talking about is absurd levels of money. Not to mention the credit risks…unless you’re suggesting the government act as guarantee, in which case we’ll have a student loan scenario. Home prices will just rise to whatever they were before, plus the government grant.
- the government has absurd levels of money
- it will literally earn the government money long term
- it’s not like it’ll happen overnight
- it’s not a grant it’s a loan. The loan would be for the entire amount. This is already basically in place in a different country.
- prices would not skyrocket because there would be virtually no rental market so if you wanted to sell you’re selling to someone who is going to occupy. Homes will not be investments the way they are currently seen. This will be a way for people currently in a position to only rent to start getting equity so they can have better opportunities in the future. Selling to upgrade will be done because a) you started earning more b) because you had a period with no payments and therefore were able to save c) originally purchased below your means. There will be inflation, but generally no one will be moving into a home for 500k and selling 2-3 years later for a million. There won’t be enough buyers once investors are mostly disincentivized/removed from the market
Is the government going to give them a car too? What good is a house to a person that has no transportation. How are they going to get to/from anywhere with how most neighborhoods are set up? There’s nothing in walking distance for them. A better solution would be for the government to tax the shit out of residential property that the owner isn’t living in so they’re incentivized to sell. Then the people that are currently renting can buy, move out of their apartments in more walkable areas and free them up for whatever the government needs to do for the homeless.
Lots of homeless people have cars. Often, they live in them. That said, it would be better for them to get to work by walking, cycling, or using public transportation.
This. Thank you.
Qui-Gon explained it best:
You and the Naboo form a symbiont circle. What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this.
Based I think the same thing should be done to retail stores. If you can’t get people to rent it. Force a sale of the building
This is something I find baffling.
In my city, it’s generally a hotspot with dramatically increasing real estate costs and high occupancy, generally.
Except this one road, which has all sorts of vacant retail, with different owners, with thriving retail and/or residential pretty much everywhere around it. Even the gas stations are 50c a gallon cheaper there then going a mile north or south of it. I have no idea why that one road is different and looking like a dying city while being surrounded by exactly the opposite.
Retail stores are dying because of cars. Every time the data shows: parking spaces decrease business, bike lanes and train stations increase it.
Stores are failing because the land they’re on isn’t useful. Cars have poisoned it.
try 100%. housing should be covered by taxes.
I think because of ex post facto, it would take 2 years at least for the housing problem to be solved in this scenario, and I don’t know if handing private assets over to any particular federal government (ahem, US government) would result in the benefit to unhoused people that this comment suggests.
Removed by mod
The federal government, as the post suggests? The federal government in the US is doing plenty of law breaking right now, but not in the interest of the unhoused. If this was in their interest though (which given the private holdings of executive, i would doubt), then yes, they could probably accomplish this in one month.
Hey, I just rented my property for exactly what the council rates and body corporate expenses are. A $160 pw home. Not even a mark up to cover repairs etc, because capital gain will more than cover that. I did it because I hate what is happening in housing currently, especially for young buyers. Now my new tenant wants to delay moving in for 3 weeks, and not pay any rent during that time. /sigh…what scum I am…
While I’m all for making it harder to just sit on housing, the “more empty homes than homeless” this, while technically true, is very misleading, and I wouldn’t want to try to force unhoused folks into the empty homes without a lot more pruning.
In-demand places don’t typically have much in the way of empty homes, as it doesn’t typically make financial sense not to rent them out. Empty homes in places like this are generally in between tenants or on the market to be sold. Meanwhile, there are places with huge numbers of empty homes, typically because of population drain. The homes sit empty not because someone’s hoarding them, but because people don’t want to move to places like Cairo, Illinois.
The statistic, whilst technically true, doesn’t take into account demographic and population changes. People want to live in places with vibrant economies and lots of job opportunities, and that’s not typically where the huge supply of empty homes is. So we can’t just redistribute our way out of this problem. Building, and especially infill in cities, is absolutely necessary in huge quantities.
People want to live in places with vibrant economies and lots of job opportunities
Homelessness does not exist on this tier of Maslow’s hierarchy.
Having a home is not useful if living it in means you can’t feed yourself. You can find owned, unoccupied housing that’s been on the market over a year. The owners don’t want it, but no buyers want it either. If you freely gave a homeless man one of those houses without any further aid, he’d probably abandon it because he’d have to be within reasonable distance of a city to actually be able to survive.
Ban corporations from owning residential properties. Houses shouldn’t be held like stocks or cryptocurrency. Only allow individuals to own a maximum of two residential properties, which must be occupied by the owner at least 5 months out of the year or be surrendered to the government, to be sold to an individual who will live in the house.
In the Netherlands we have wooncorporatie, which are non-profit home rental companies. I think it’s a reasonable model, although the center right government tried to get rid of them for years. (Now we have a coalition of far-right parties in power, and they don’t even have anything like a consistent ideology much less policy so who can know what the future brings?)
Meh, they would redefine vacant and claim “their” property isn’t affected by the law.
Right and that is also a solvable problem.
Based on what evidence do you think that laws apply to people with money. Laws were made to protect commerce, and by extension, those with the money. There will always be a loophole for them.
I’m a condo super, there’s one apartment in my building that has been vacant for 5+ years and the owners i think live in Hong Kong. If someone busted in there they could squat for years
Where I live there was a super-popular local bakery. The landlord tried to get them to pay a higher rent and then kicked them out when they refused. The building has now been empty for the last five years. I do not understand the economics of this shit.
I don’t understand that either! Sometimes I think people are so numerally illiterate and emotionally butthurt that they completely disregard carrying and opportunity costs.
Not likely intentional, more likely a redevelopment attempt that fell through, is blocked by zoning or other red tape, or changing market conditions.
We have a similar situation on a prime location on a very active street of shops and restaurants: there’s no reason for these building to be vacant for years. However I understand they wanted to redevelop to a much bigger building and have not been able to get it re-zoned.
Right across the street a similar redevelopment effort has been a huge success with something liver 100 apartments over street level restaurants. That’s perfect for that location and we need more of it, but exceeded zoning limits. Ever since then, our town council has been dragging to slow redevelopment
We need to strengthen adverse possession laws. Adverse possession, aka squatter’s rights, were intended for this exact problem. Adverse possession laws were very popular in the 19th century in the American west. In western states, there was a problem. Speculators out east would buy up undeveloped parcels and hoard them for investment purposes. They might buy up a piece of land in rural Kansas. They would wait until homesteaders moved in nearby, worked and built up their own farms. Then the speculators would sell. This was a way for lazy speculators to profit off the hard work of yeoman farmers.
So states passed adverse possession laws. The idea was that if you cared so little for a property that you don’t even notice someone openly living on it for 7 years or so, then really, you don’t deserve to own that property. There is only so much land on this Earth. We need to be good stewards of our finite land; especially if we’re taking that land from its natural state.
We need to strengthen and expand these laws. I would set adverse possession for condos and houses maybe to just three years. We have a severe housing shortage, we cannot afford to let units sit completely unused and wasted. If you own so much property, and care for it so little, that someone can live there for three years without you even noticing? Sorry. Use it or lose it.
Private property is a social contract. We agree to respect private property rights, because we have found through generations that a system based on private property produces a lot of benefits to society. But private property is not some absolute natural right. If you are going to own property to exclusion of everyone else, it is reasonable for you to be required to use that property productively. Why should we bother protecting the property rights of those who are using property in such destructive and anti-social ways like using vacant properties for speculation purposes?
All that would do is increase demand for security guards and expand their services to checking on residential properties the parasite class own.
That sounds like a bonus. Either way it’s distributing some amount of wealth and making it more expensive to be a deadbeat landlord.
That’s terrible. You should post the address and unit number so everyone knows to stay away from it.
Where I live, there’s a bunch of abandoned squatter places where drug heads go to shoot up.
There’s been countless court cases of the city government trying to sue the landlords who own it. 90% of the time, the lawsuit fails because of some clause where if the landlord isn’t able to show up (because they live in a different state or a foreign investor), the court hearing gets postponed.
My city tried to pass an ordinance to remove that clause but it was shot down.
So random crack house owned by some rich asshole in California that’s next to a school doesn’t get any better for years.
Seems like the kinda thing that would get fixed with a Finnish cocktail party.
There are literally amendments to the Constitution preventing this from happening have you all lost your mind!
They’re just kids living out a simplistic power fantasy. “If I were king of the world, I’d solve this huge, intractable problem with a simple order”. Like Mao ordering all the sparrows to be killed. Hopefully, once they experience the world a little, they realize that big problems are big because they’re difficult and complicated to solve.
Housing is more complex and the proposed solution may not work, but there are some problems that could be solved by someone with absolute power pretty easily. For example, if we shipped health insurance CEOs off to El Salvadorian labor camps instead of innocent immigrants, people would stop having their claims denied and the concept of a deductible would go the way of the dodo.
facepalm
Why do we have to pretend the constitution matters when our enemies don’t?
Ummm… Because our enemies don’t… 🤷
Obviously the system should be fixed and charity isn’t a solution, but wouldn’t it be cool if a wealthy person or organization or “company” just bought all these houses to solve homelessness?
