[CydeWeys]

That's not true in the modern world and never has been. There's plenty of things you can't do with your property, and indeed the total universe of what you can do is much smaller than the universe of what you cannot do.

Cities are (necessarily) very tightly regulated, because when people and property are packed in so tightly together the possibilities for negative externalities are severe. It's important to optimize the very limited space in a way that maximizes its good for as many people as possible.

You have a lot more leeway to do whatever you want way out in the country if that's what you're looking for, but you should never expect that in a dense city, because you won't find it anywhere.

[cycrutchfield]

What are the negative externalities associated with me leaving my house empty vs. me living in it? Bear in mind that any perceived shortage of housing in the local area is most likely artificial in nature because of NIMBY policies that I did not vote for.

[CydeWeys]

The claim I was responding to was that people should be able to do "whatever they want" with their properties, which encompasses a lot more than just leaving them vacant.

But to answer your specific question, the most obvious negative externality is increased rents for other people, because an apartment that could be being rented out (increasing supply) isn't being rented out.

Having lots of vacant residences also potentially increases crime, is bad for neighborhood maintenance (we have a huge problem here in NYC of sidewalks not being shoveled in front of vacant properties when it snows), it gives pests a potential home, and increases the potential to damage surrounding residences. Vacant residences are more likely to fall under disrepair and then catch on fire or start leaks, which can damage nearby or underneath residences. If you're touching one then it's bad for your heating/AC bills, because your heat/cold is sapping through the walls into the un-conditioned apartment. Even just simple things like having fewer eyes to watch out for crime and call the police if a burglar or robber is spotted.

There's a huge host of problems associated with having long-term vacant residences in your neighborhood.

[bradleybuda]

Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware? By not selling your things, you are making those things more expensive for everyone else. Therefore, you are creating a negative externality by not selling your things, and storing unused property in your garage and basement should be illegal.

What you are describing is not an “externality” in the way that economists use that term.

[Dylan16807]

Land in a developed area is in very limited supply, it's necessary to make the economy function, and most of the owners are speculating on the price going up. Kitchenware doesn't work that way. Almost nothing else works that way.

Owning central land and not using it means that millions of people have to go further to get to their destinations. It also means that construction effort and money is going into a black hole and not turning into supply. Enough of this together makes a powerful negative externality.

[dehrmann]

> Land in a developed area is in very limited supply

Because of high rises and land reclamation, this is a lot less true than you'd think.

[Dylan16807]

The zoning has to allow for building up before that counts.

[xenadu02]

People need homes to live. Shelter is essential in the way very few things are.

[cycrutchfield]

How about you start paying fines for all that unused food in your pantry?

[baroffoos]

If there was some financial incentive to buy food and leave it to rot and this was causing a food shortage then yes, that is a sound idea.

[alanlamm]

Yes, or even better, for all that surplus lard on your body!

[brandonmenc]

> Are you currently selling your unused possessions on Craigslist? That camping gear or extra set of kitchenware?

Can you create new land?

No. They are completely different things.

[cycrutchfield]

You can create a lot of housing out of a fixed amount of land. All you have to do is allow developers to build up.

[spoondan]

The ability to apply the same argument to another situation has no probative value. Any policy has its pros and cons. One can support vacancy taxes/fines without supporting other taxes on unused possessions.

[jellicle]

Is that a trick question? The negative externality is leaving a usable property vacant when public policy encourages use. You're maintaining this situation:

https://squattinglondon.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/ominous-...

and it seems obvious to me why that's bad and public policy should not promote it.

As a public policy, along the lines of taxing vacant properties, we could also simply permit any vacant or unused property to be lived in and used by anyone who came along.

[chriogenix]

in a very wealth neighborhood of Honolulu, think where the average home is 4-5+ Million USD, a japanese owner of many houses 20+ wanted to build a gallery for his art. the wealthy neighbors didnt want it so what he did instead was rent all of his houses to low income hawaiians and put the art out on one of his vacant lots. they were mainly weird statues. naked greek gods etc. Just goes to show what people can do when sufficiently motivated.

for anyone that wants to read further his name is Kawamoto and he was recently arrested for Tax evasion in japan and was forced to sell his Kahala Homes Portfolio