Foreign-owned homes are a problem for asset acquirers. Vacant homes are a problem for anyone who needs housing. The former seems to get a lot of visibilty when concerns around the latter get raised.
But they pay taxes without demanding any services and the seller assessed they had better use of the capital, they could buy or build a more suitable home.
If I lived in a location with 50% vacant homes all paying property taxes then wouldn’t my schools and streets and all local government services be extremely well funded?
Austrian economics teaches us that restricting foreign investment misinterprets how markets work. Vacant homes signal opportunities for builders, not losses for workers. Investment flows where it’s valued, stimulating demand and construction, not stifling growth. Misallocating housing due to artificial constraints only distorts the market, harming those you aim to help. Let’s not forget, economic growth comes from creating value, not redistributing scarcity.
Sure, property taxes are paid on the house.
But unoccupied homes don't buy groceries and clothes, don't go to restaurants in the local economy.
So they do harm the economy, in the sense that they don't contribute as much to the economy as an occupied home.
Government intervention to forcibly lower property values or curb vacant properties is misguided and would likely diminish overall prosperity. Instead, efforts should concentrate on dismantling barriers like excessive zoning restrictions and streamlining building permits to encourage development and increase housing supply.
Viewing luxury or seaside properties remaining vacant as a problem ignores the unseen advantages these transactions provide. Sellers receive capital, presumably to be allocated more efficiently, while buyers secure a safe investment, indirectly contributing to the economy’s health. High housing prices signal a need for market adjustments, not for envy-driven policies that would only stifle growth and innovation. The sentiment of envy, while potentially motivating in small-scale societies, can lead to destructive policies in complex modern economies, detracting from the foundational principles that drive progress and prosperity.
You: "row upon row of vacant luxury properties represent significant capital inflow!"
Real world: vacant luxury houses can cause blight and other problems just as much as low-income housing.
Also, the value of the vacant property does not decrease because it is occupied. Unless your claim is that the local burden of people existing in a community is larger than the combination of their property and other contributions.
So an occupied property represents significant capital inflows AND enhances economic well-being on a per capita basis, AND does so moreso than the vacant, because there's the capital inflow AND the local spending.
Otherwise you end up with the absurdist trope of talking about public budgets as "homes and communities are worth more if no-one lives in them".
"Assume a spherical cow..." "Assume a row of oceanfront villas that have roads and sewage and utilities that require less maintenance because they're all vacant."
Phrasing it, as you repeatedly do, as "envy-driven" and "anti-free market" and libertarian ideology is sophistry. "You just don't get economics" - no, people understand that housing isn't a purely economic construct.
The idea that homes might be ‘worth more if nobody lives in them’ reflects a misunderstanding of market dynamics in exclusive areas. These properties offer significant economic benefits by providing substantial tax revenues and maintaining high property values, which support public budgets and infrastructure with minimal physical wear and tear. This scenario underscores the often-overlooked reality that absentee ownership can contribute positively to a community’s economic and physical landscape.
Furthermore, dismissing the economic construct of housing ignores the foundational principles of supply and demand that govern real estate markets. All aspects of housing, from affordability to availability, are indeed shaped by economic forces. Acknowledging this doesn’t detract from the importance of community and social well-being; rather, it provides a basis for understanding and addressing housing challenges in a manner grounded in reality, not ideology.