SF considers taxing property owners who keep property vacant

cawacko

Well-known member
They really dislike the idea of property rights here. Once you lease your property the tenant has almost total control in many cases. Yet choosing to leave your property empty isn't acceptable? Continual bad legislation after bad legislation is contributing to us having the most expensive real estate market in the country. People here complain then vote in the same people over and over.




SF to explore taxing property owners who keep buildings, units vacant


City officials have started to more seriously discuss imposing a tax on vacancies.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin requested the City Attorney’s Office on Tuesday “to explore legislation that would allow the city and county San Francisco to impose a vacancy tax on property owners to help mitigate the impacts of the widespread practice of warehousing valuable residential and commercial units.”

He said, “I continue to receive emails and requests from constituents to address the overwhelming number of vacancies both commercial and residential that continue to contribute to our housing crisis as well as the displacement and struggles of our small businesses.”

The issue most recently came up at City Hall last month when the Planning Commission discussed a report on San Francisco’s housing supply.

The commissioners said there was a lack of city data on the number of units sitting vacant, but worried that vacancies were contributing to the shortage of housing in The City.

One commissioner suggested that San Francisco explore a vacancy tax similar to one recently adopted in Vancouver.

At the time, Commissioner Kathrin Moore, who lives in the northeast part of The City, said vacant units appear on the rise.

“I walk my neighborhood frequently,” Moore said, as previously reported by the San Francisco Examiner. “On the outside, they all look very nice but there is nobody home.”

In 2014, pro-development group SPUR analyzed federal census data and determined there were 30,000 vacant units, which included 8,900 units in the process of being rented, 2,400 ownership units in the process being sold or sold and not yet occupied, vacation or seasonal use at about 9,100 units, and 9,700 units not in any of those categories.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-to-explore-taxing-property-owners-who-keep-buildings-units-vacant/
 
Why would a landlord or property owner deliberately choose to leave his property vacant? Is there a plus side to having vacant property, especially income property?
 
Why would a landlord or property owner deliberately choose to leave his property vacant? Is there a plus side to having vacant property, especially income property?

only if the government requires that you rent it for less than it costs you to keep it habitable........
 
Why would a landlord or property owner deliberately choose to leave his property vacant? Is there a plus side to having vacant property, especially income property?

it's a reaction to rent control and the power of the tenant's rights we have here. If someone moves in to your unit it is extremely difficult to get them to move out if you so desire. So some are content to let their property sit vacant while it appreciates and maybe rent it to family or friends but not the general public.
 
it's a reaction to rent control
SF has rent control??? Wow. Sounds like a bad place to own rental property unless it's been in the family for generations and has long been paid for. Or only the very wealthy own rental property who can pay cash for it.
Sounds like SF is a feudal system.
 
@cawacko... How on earth do you make a living in real estate in SF? And why do you live there? I know aesthetically it's nice, but sounds impractical.
 
@cawacko... How on earth do you make a living in real estate in SF? And why do you live there? I know aesthetically it's nice, but sounds impractical.

haha, it's pretty crazy. It's great when you owner occupy your unit. My property values have skyrocketed. It sucks if you are renting or want to buy.
 
it's a reaction to rent control and the power of the tenant's rights we have here. If someone moves in to your unit it is extremely difficult to get them to move out if you so desire. So some are content to let their property sit vacant while it appreciates and maybe rent it to family or friends but not the general public.

Wouldn't the vacant tax be aimed at individuals, especially foreigners and investors, who might buy up vacant property and let them sit solely for the purpose of appreciation and profit as the rents increase with demand?
 
Wouldn't the vacant tax be aimed at individuals, especially foreigners and investors, who might buy up vacant property and let them sit solely for the purpose of appreciation and profit as the rents increase with demand?

It would be targeted at any property owner, be they an individual who lives in the City or an overseas investor. The point of property rights is allowing one to do what they want with their property, including leaving it vacant. We create these rules to make being a LL very difficult and then want to punish LL's for reacting to the incentives our city gov't created. It's a big cluster F.
 
It would be targeted at any property owner, be they an individual who lives in the City or an overseas investor. The point of property rights is allowing one to do what they want with their property, including leaving it vacant. We create these rules to make being a LL very difficult and then want to punish LL's for reacting to the incentives our city gov't created. It's a big cluster F.

I would assume though in a city like SF with it's real estate values and transformation investors would be involved to make a profit off of the appreciation thru gentrification and keeping property vacant while a percentage of the city suffers from housing shortages

If the situation I just described does exist isn't the responsibility of the City to do something before it is too late?

If you are a resident, I think you got a bigger problem, SF turning into an urban Silicon Valley there by losing the character that made it one of America's truly unique cities
 
I would assume though in a city like SF with it's real estate values and transformation investors would be involved to make a profit off of the appreciation thru gentrification and keeping property vacant while a percentage of the city suffers from housing shortages

If the situation I just described does exist isn't the responsibility of the City to do something before it is too late?

If you are a resident, I think you got a bigger problem, SF turning into an urban Silicon Valley there by losing the character that made it one of America's truly unique cities

What the City needs to do is build more housing. We don't come close to producing enough supply to meet the demand. Thus property values and rent continue to increase. (the Bay Area as a whole doesn't build enough housing)

What we have created is a City of essentially rich and poor only. We have the smallest number of children of any big City in America.

We need to end rent control, we need to allow more development and streamline the development process. That's what will change the situation. I don't think this legislation, if it ever passed, would stand up in court. But by focusing on this they are missing the forest for the trees.
 
I would assume though in a city like SF with it's real estate values and transformation investors would be involved to make a profit off of the appreciation thru gentrification and keeping property vacant while a percentage of the city suffers from housing shortages

If the situation I just described does exist isn't the responsibility of the City to do something before it is too late?

If you are a resident, I think you got a bigger problem, SF turning into an urban Silicon Valley there by losing the character that made it one of America's truly unique cities

What the City needs to do is build more housing. We don't come close to producing enough supply to meet the demand. Thus property values and rent continue to increase. (the Bay Area as a whole doesn't build enough housing)

What we have created is a City of essentially rich and poor only. We have the smallest number of children of any big City in America.

We need to end rent control, we need to allow more development and streamline the development process. That's what will change the situation. I don't think this legislation, if it ever passed, would stand up in court. But by focusing on this they are missing the forest for the trees.
 
Rent control and anti development practices should be banned. But so should regulations that seek to prevent multi-family homes and encourage the development of sprawling suburbs.
 
Rent control and anti development practices should be banned. But so should regulations that seek to prevent multi-family homes and encourage the development of sprawling suburbs.

You get places like the Bay Area and LA were they make it very difficult to build and so you have to build further and further out.

Always interesting to hear people who claim to be environmentalists fight against more dense urban development which results in sprawling suburbs
 
Back
Top