zlacker

>>Strato+(OP)
I had no idea who Dan Preston was until Tan complained about him, but given

> In 2022, Preston proposed a ballot measure to tax vacant housing in San Francisco.

I think I might just love the guy. Thanks for the awareness campaign Garry!

>>hughes+U8
Perhaps I could interest you in some rent control too.

>>onepoi+Tm
Ruins market mechanisms too much. Taxing vacancies doesn't ruin the supply and demand equations.

>>Sabinu+jn
it unfairly punishes property owners in soft rental markets like the one we have now.

i’ve seen an unusual number of multifamily properties listed all over SF last few months.

>>tempsy+Co
So? Then they need to lower the damn rent.

This idea that rising property values is a God-given right needs to stop.

Capitalism is supposed to work BOTH directions--up and down.

>>bsder+Kp
not sure what you’re talking about but rents in SF are still very much down vs 2019

market has demonstrated plenty it can lower rents as is

>>tempsy+xq
Don’t pretend it’s anywhere near a free market as is. It’s nigh impossible to build new or denser inventory there.

>>dymk+us
Yeah that’s not true

there’s plenty of half empty apartments all over soma and mission bay

>>tempsy+ht
And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price.

If it’s set where it’s cheaper to hang onto the vacancy until rents rise again and finish the build then, it’s a problem.

>>vlovic+oE
> And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price.

i tend to favor vacancy tax, but this won't fix the problem with developers. SF needs to reform their review process. this is TLDR but there was a big study about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/san-francisco-housing....

it's already incredibly expensive for a developer to even go through the review process for a development, let alone build it. a vacancy tax would further deter developers from building in SF (as it's already happening due to the terrible review process)

>>greeni+ye1
That story is a bit dated. The California laws are forcing municipalities like SF to fix the review process and in fact a new plan was submitted in December and initially rejected before an updated plan was submitted at the end of December. The hope is that this fixes things and if it doesn’t SF is at risk of losing its zoning powers wholesale which may not be such a bad idea.

>>vlovic+bX1
the story might be dated but the research that drove the story isn't dated, that's what i was trying to share. the action from the state and the municipalities was informed by a research project from UC Berkeley.