|
Striving for higher occupancy rates doesn't seem to be bad on its face to me. It'd be tough to craft the appropriate tax incentives under our current economic mode but it could be done. Not for individual homes, but incentivizing apartment complexes to lower rents and fill units via tax incentives isn't totally baffling. I haven't really thought about this or imagined how landlords would take advantage of it yet so I can't layout any half-baked ideas on it, but I'd definitely consider this scheme if it come up in a vote.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Housing should be de-commodified since it's something everyone needs and it's proven that the state can build housing. The problem is that the Soviets made those huge tower-blocks and that's what people think of when they think of government housing, that or run-down Section 8 stuff, even though the government could also make row-houses, medium-density buildings, etc. and make them with good insulating materials that would block normal day-to-day sounds. We need a city test lab, it's incredible that nobody has tried to do it at a decent scale IMO. Just private developers trying to make (the incredibly profitable) "the city of the future!" in conjunction with a bunch of know-nothings goobers in government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
The solution to the housing crisis is not to make every homeowner into an obligatory landlord. Professional landlords are lovely enough, random idiots are basically guaranteed to rampantly violate housing rights. We want to decommodify housing, not make it a massive business center. Also, the enforcement part of this is insane. Can you imagine the bureaucracy to organize all the information necessary to track that these rooms are actually filled, by the people listed, and that these people aren't listed in multiple places or made up or deceased? Or the constitutional violations of forcing everyone to consent to random searches of their house to check that they actually have the rooms occupied every night, and by the listed people? edit: Oh yeah, and who is a tax really going to effect? Poor people are renting anyway, and keeping most of those rooms filled if not, and rich people can pay the luxury tax to have unoccupied rooms. So only people juuuust rich enough to own a house will actually be impacted by this theoretical tax, in a purely negative way to either their time, or finances, or both. Perfect regressive scheme. Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:veritas alone owns 250 apartment buildings in san francisco. spare bedrooms are a pittance. which is why the entire second half of my post is there
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
If you make every homeowner a landlord, you're going to see them start voting like landlords. It's bad enough when they vote like homeowners. The two solutions to a lack of housing are having the government build homes and letting businesses build more homes. Both are good ideas and California should do both. To oppose either demonstrates a revealed preference for climate change, which is nice, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
nrook posted:If you make every homeowner a landlord, you're going to see them start voting like landlords. It's bad enough when they vote like homeowners. TBH there is going to be no political willpower to use provably effective solutions like these until the discourse begins to shift to "maybe violence is the answer." They're not gonna do poo poo until they're afraid of getting burned to a crisp in their offices. The people who are suffering aren't the folks lining pockets. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun and all that
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
i'm not saying kill them all right now, but I am saying that they should fear that it's on the table if things don't change
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or instead we could just build more housing instead of a neoliberal tax credit for big families. Ah yes, more neoliberal housing stock for "investors" to sit on
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is a trail of tears for boomers. Kick them out to the middle of America and then sell their homes for what they originally bought it for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Ah yes, more neoliberal housing stock for "investors" to sit on Oh sorry to be clear, I meant publicly owned housing. ratbert90 posted:The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is a trail of tears for boomers. Kick them out to the middle of America and then sell their homes for what they originally bought it for. Honestly they don't even need to go that far, just Barstow or Yreka. Let nature take its course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:11
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:The easiest way to solve the housing crisis is a trail of tears for boomers. Kick them out to the middle of America and then sell their homes for what they originally bought it for. The ocean is right there, dude
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
and in conclusion,
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
Pomp posted:The ocean is right there, dude Please don't advocate for the dumping of toxic waste into sensitive marine environments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy This is a totally important issue compared to dealing with the houses, apartments, and condos that are completely empty because an investor is collecting houses like pokemon. Someone should map out all the permanently unoccupied "investments" and print thousands of copys of the map out and pass it out to homeless activists. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
Yes lads, but what about the economy. It's more important than the lives of the poor!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
Pomp posted:The ocean is right there, dude I would never pollute the ocean with white trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Also people should be allowed to throw out cornball ideas without getting told they're stupid. Everything good was a cornball idea once. You need other people helping you think through the implications of what you're saying/people with knowledge in lots of different areas to challenge you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Yes lads, but what about the economy. It's more important than the lives of the poor! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is a totally important issue compared to dealing with the houses, apartments, and condos that are completely empty because an investor is collecting houses like pokemon. he mentioned that in his original post, yes. everyone just laser-focused on the small empty bedroom tax
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
sincx posted:It's because how tone-deaf and ridiculous that proposal was under cut the rest of his message. The vast majority of people do not want the government to punish them for not wanting strangers in their empty rooms. i mean, for one, if we're going off what the vast majority of people in california want, it's the status quo. we couldn't even repeal the law banning new rent control statutes. and for two, what people currently want is a terrible metric for judging ideas for progress. the vast majority of people didn't want seat belts either, for one fairly extreme example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:i mean, for one, if we're going off what the vast majority of people in california want, it's the status quo. we couldn't even repeal the law banning new rent control statutes. and for two, what people currently want is a terrible metric for judging ideas for progress. the vast majority of people didn't want seat belts either, for one fairly extreme example. *what the people with no significant barriers to voting want
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:45
|
|
|
is prop 13 still in effect? we had that millionaire's tax a few years ago, which i thought repealed it? or was it just raised for that one time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:is prop 13 still in effect? we had that millionaire's tax a few years ago, which i thought repealed it? or was it just raised for that one time? Prop 13 is very much still in effect. For both business and residential property. You'll know when it's even sorta maybe close to being considered for possibly being fully repealed by the anguished sounds of thirty million california boomers (and older) screaming bloody murder about MAH PROPERTY TAXES AM TOO HIGH in discordant unison with every major business interest in the state's multimillion-dollar television campaigns about how CALIFORNIA IS DESTROYING BUSINESSES. e. the thing about taxing unused bedrooms is immaterial because it's impossible to legislate. As previously mentioned, what constitutes "a bedroom" is, legally, just the presence of a closet, and there's no practical alternative to that that isn't similarly easy to work around. It's comparable to the various amusing ancient property tax practices such as taxing you for how many windows or doors you have; which is to say, the result would not be a huge increase in rooms for rent, it would just be the outcome of a perverse incentive to make rooms that homeowners are not currently using to house a human into whatever legally constitutes "not technically a bedroom." Because it's so impossible to legislate or enact it's not worth discussing or arguing about. We can move on to the next idea. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
lol two of the four bedrooms in my $4500/mo four-person apartment dont have closets
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
replacing all of my bedroom doors with bead curtains one weird trick the tax man hates
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:29
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:is prop 13 still in effect? we had that millionaire's tax a few years ago, which i thought repealed it? or was it just raised for that one time? Sane Californians have almost no viable path to repealing that monstrosity of an amendment. The damned thing even got upheld 8-1 by SCOTUS in 1992, with them expressly commenting on the fact that it was probably a lovely idea and was unlikely to ever have the opportunity to be repealed by any ordinary democratic process. Prop 13 will be here a loooong time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Sane Californians have almost no viable path to repealing that monstrosity of an amendment. The damned thing even got upheld 8-1 by SCOTUS in 1992, with them expressly commenting on the fact that it was probably a lovely idea and was unlikely to ever have the opportunity to be repealed by any ordinary democratic process. Prop 13 will be here a loooong time. I think we’ve got a shot at removing the tax break for commercial properties, but yeah residential is a lost cause for now. It’s okay though. We’ll just ask our K-12 teachers to go a bit more out of pocket for classroom supplies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Sane Californians have almost no viable path to repealing that monstrosity of an amendment. The damned thing even got upheld 8-1 by SCOTUS in 1992, with them expressly commenting on the fact that it was probably a lovely idea and was unlikely to ever have the opportunity to be repealed by any ordinary democratic process. Prop 13 will be here a loooong time. Yeah it's hosed, although cities can and already do levy "parcel taxes" based on sq-ft and stuff. Some have varying levels, and it's not so much a stretch to have "north side of towns (districts 8,13,19) pay $10 and southside pay $1", and taking that further, it's easy with modern computers, GIS databases, and an internal Zillow-esque database to get very down to each individual-house granular. So you could levy varying parcel tax based on size, location, how much other similar ones have sold for, etc. i.e. you're in a multi-million 3-story craftsman fairytale house high up in the berkeley hills/piedmont/pacific heights/etc overlooking the poors and recent houses sold for $4.1 million, we consider you in parcel d369-b-3299105 subject to parcel tax of $391.39/sq ft a year. Even if the multi-million home is formally tax-assessed at $139,000 paying $139 a year in property tax. but, you would have to actually have City councils and poo poo not packed full of aging racist nimby white boomers, and if can pull it off then also be secure from the massive obscene wealth that the rich hold getting directed towards kicking out anyone for voted for it and repealing. That's probably just only just narrowly more feasible. Xaris fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Jan 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 07:28
|
|
|
Tacier posted:I think we’ve got a shot at removing the tax break for commercial properties, but yeah residential is a lost cause for now. It’s okay though. We’ll just ask our K-12 teachers to go a bit more out of pocket for classroom supplies. yep vote yes on this november 3rd to tax disneyland at their fair share market rate funding in support looks great so far; polling, not so much but it's still real early
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 08:31
|
|
|
What is the vacancy rate for residential housing in the Bay Area? Is it really that high? I suspect that people in this thread are fixated on the housing vacancy rate because it promotes the kind of heroes & villains narrative towards housing that progressively-minded people love.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is the vacancy rate for residential housing in the Bay Area? Is it really that high? I suspect that people in this thread are fixated on the housing vacancy rate because it promotes the kind of heroes & villains narrative towards housing that progressively-minded people love. https://sf.curbed.com/2019/12/13/21012824/san-francisco-home-vacancies-homeless-housing-crisis quote:But “vacant units for rent” and “vacant units for sale” are indeed two of the ways that the U.S. Census defines a vacant home. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/05/how-many-vacant-houses-are-there-really-in-the-bay-area/ quote:“They’re allowing their homes to sit there empty in the midst of the biggest humanitarian crisis we’ve seen of this kind in the United States,” said Needa Bee, an Oakland-based advocate for homeless residents’ rights. From the point of view of "the economy" these numbers are fine, because the "percentage is low" and this makes a "healthy sellers market" for developers to sell more investment properties. For normal people this is all bullshit. Then theres the inheritors-cum-aspiring-landlords quote:Other efforts to count vacant properties in the Bay Area have had mixed results. Oakland voters last year approved a tax on vacant properties, with the proceeds funding homeless services, affordable housing and anti-dumping programs. Recently, the city halved the tax to $3,000 for most affected owners. "Heres your one chance to be less poor" is at least an understandable thing, but doesnt make anything better. (Of course being 65 and having the resources to camp on the property while raising money to tear ito down and build a max-profit apartment lot on a single family lot implies he isnt really struggling to begin with.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
The source in that article states that vacancy in San Francisco is at 5.6%. Increasing the housing stock of SF by one or two percent would be great, but it wouldn't even come close to fixing the housing crisis that had led to so much suffering in the area. Arguments about vacancy are common among anti-housing folks because if they're true, that means we can fix the housing crisis without changing neighborhoods or building new houses. These types of people tend to cloak themselves in populist rhetoric, but if you dig a little deeper you'll find the same complaints about changing the character of neighborhoods, parking, and traffic that characterize all NIMBYs. FRINGE posted:Removing parking requirements is a handout to real estate developers that causes the neighborhood a lot of pain. Doing it in CA where everyone has a car is a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
Maybe it's possible that everyone here is arguing in good faith and is not actually a shadowy lobbyist employed by either Big Real Estate or Big Freeway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
Wait, I thought we were all getting paid by Big Subway
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Wait, I thought we were all getting paid by Big Subway Well, it is one of the fastest-growing franchises in the world
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
I'm on retainer by the estate of Robert Nozick
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
I've laid out several alternative housing plans (dirigible based and tunnel based) but I do have to disclose that I am paid by AerosCraft and the Boring Company to spread these ideas here, specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
A different take on housing crises is that there is plenty of open space and less developed cities away from the city centers... but that's because jobs still require you to commute to the city center, so you're spending hours in the car in exchange for a cheaper house. Promoting or mandating telecommuting options for white collar work (even if maybe 25% of work still required physical presence) would let people spread out into less impacted housing spaces without destroying their quality of life and jamming every highway in California.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:lol two of the four bedrooms in my $4500/mo four-person apartment dont have closets You technically live in a 2 bedroom apartment. I bet you can get your landlord in some trouble if you want. (please keep in mind I know nothing about renting or w/e, that wasn't my area)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2020 17:54
|
|