I would love to see vacancy taxes in my city. Its the only way of countering the assetization of housing. People are more concerned about the value of the property than revenue. So they keep rent high to make the property look good. Vacancy taxes are the only thing that solve this directly.
Public housing can make rent more affordable and improve housing security. For people living in the public housing as well as those in the private properties that are now in competition with the public sector.
But only vacancy taxes can reign in property investment firms hoping for profit from appreciation rather than revenue. With vacancy taxes they have to actually provide a product and not just hold onto land.
Yeah I think it’s really important to look at the problem holistically and address it from multiple angles.
Improving tenants’ rights is important so that people living in rentals have a good quality of life and are able to speak up for themselves when there’s something wrong.
But that might cause some places to be taken off the market, with people preferring the lazy option of keeping it empty rather than deal with providing a service that meets the legal minimum standard. So that’s where vacancy levies come in.
But that doesn’t address the price of rentals. Or of the related issue of how much it costs for first home buyers to get their own place. For that, we need more supply. Change zoning laws to allow much more gentle density across the whole city. Right now, BCC prefers a very limited process where they approve only very high density at a slow rate, with the remainder of the city being low density only. We need a wider-sweeping change with medium density across the whole city.
And to prevent exploitation by the private market, public housing should make up a good percentage of the overall market. Something like 20% should be the bare minimum that we look at.
And you can tinker around the edge with other little things, like short-term accommodation regulation.
None of these things, on their own, can fix the problem. But when you look at them holistically they each feed into addressing the underlying crisis while also reinforcing each other.
You’re right to mention how interconnected it all is.
Tenant rights helps to prevent evictions, discrimination, and to ensure good maintenance.
Vacancy taxes ensures that landlords can’t artificially shrink supply to raise prices and increase values, and to prevent capital strike.
Public housing creates competition that lowers prices for renters.
Appropriate volume of supply makes sure that everyone is housed in a basic sense. But only if it is the right kind of supply
If any of these categories are off they impact the others
I see lots of people rush to say that supply is the problem but you have to consider how market forces act upon the supply. “Luxury” developments don’t help most people. And as you said it has to be the right density too. In my city more than 10% of units are vacant at any time. Thats at least 20,000 units. This is why I want vacancy taxes so much. Zoning needs to be improved, and its worth new construction to do so. But in most US cities, idk about Australia, vacancy taxes would be enough increase in supply on their own.
Its also super important to mention the ramifications are commercial zoning. Vacancy taxes are even more important there. Commercial landlords are all holding out for a big chain to move in so they can jack up prices. Its why there are so few niche stores in US cities nowadays.
I’m ok with very high density zoning if its paired with expansions to mass transit. But generally speaking row housing and 3-4 story apartment buildings are the bread and butter. However any current city dominated by single family detached housing needs serious changes, seriously quickly. In those situations “spikey” development is worth it.
I would love to see vacancy taxes in my city. Its the only way of countering the assetization of housing. People are more concerned about the value of the property than revenue. So they keep rent high to make the property look good. Vacancy taxes are the only thing that solve this directly.
Public housing can make rent more affordable and improve housing security. For people living in the public housing as well as those in the private properties that are now in competition with the public sector.
But only vacancy taxes can reign in property investment firms hoping for profit from appreciation rather than revenue. With vacancy taxes they have to actually provide a product and not just hold onto land.
Yeah I think it’s really important to look at the problem holistically and address it from multiple angles.
Improving tenants’ rights is important so that people living in rentals have a good quality of life and are able to speak up for themselves when there’s something wrong.
But that might cause some places to be taken off the market, with people preferring the lazy option of keeping it empty rather than deal with providing a service that meets the legal minimum standard. So that’s where vacancy levies come in.
But that doesn’t address the price of rentals. Or of the related issue of how much it costs for first home buyers to get their own place. For that, we need more supply. Change zoning laws to allow much more gentle density across the whole city. Right now, BCC prefers a very limited process where they approve only very high density at a slow rate, with the remainder of the city being low density only. We need a wider-sweeping change with medium density across the whole city.
And to prevent exploitation by the private market, public housing should make up a good percentage of the overall market. Something like 20% should be the bare minimum that we look at.
And you can tinker around the edge with other little things, like short-term accommodation regulation.
None of these things, on their own, can fix the problem. But when you look at them holistically they each feed into addressing the underlying crisis while also reinforcing each other.
You’re right to mention how interconnected it all is.
I see lots of people rush to say that supply is the problem but you have to consider how market forces act upon the supply. “Luxury” developments don’t help most people. And as you said it has to be the right density too. In my city more than 10% of units are vacant at any time. Thats at least 20,000 units. This is why I want vacancy taxes so much. Zoning needs to be improved, and its worth new construction to do so. But in most US cities, idk about Australia, vacancy taxes would be enough increase in supply on their own.
Its also super important to mention the ramifications are commercial zoning. Vacancy taxes are even more important there. Commercial landlords are all holding out for a big chain to move in so they can jack up prices. Its why there are so few niche stores in US cities nowadays.
I’m ok with very high density zoning if its paired with expansions to mass transit. But generally speaking row housing and 3-4 story apartment buildings are the bread and butter. However any current city dominated by single family detached housing needs serious changes, seriously quickly. In those situations “spikey” development is worth it.