• Katana314@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I think it’s fine to use it as a speculation tool if you are living there. If not, then it should be a massive tax liability. Pressure people buying empty homes to either rent them to someone for cheap, live in them, or sell them.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      this is precisely what NIMBYism is. People living in their own homes, who want to force up the value by preventing new homes from being constructed.

      it’s also the reason for the crisis. without that attitude and all the zoning restrictions, our housing market would be much more cheap and flexible. but when you have towns that only permit like 50 new houses a a year, and the population is growing at 3x that, you have a serious problem

      • devedeset@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The flip side is when your state mandates allowing 4-6 homes on regular SFH plots and then your property value goes up because you can now build more housing

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think the concept of a tax penalty with some relief for having a tenant that isn’t being gouged sounds nice.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Hell, just requiring HAVING a tenant would be great for starters because of how many empty homes there are. If you’ve got the empty homes, and a tax penalty for them being empty, suddenly they’d have to compete for tenants. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?