[cudgy]

And yet most large cities have sections of it that are in total blight with abandoned homes, with windows blown out or plywood covering access holes to prevent intruders.

Much of the problem is that the bourgeois class wants to live in the popular neighborhood, bidding up rents and values in isolated sections of large cities. Meanwhile, large chunks of cities have relatively affordable, but not as attractive neighborhoods with homes that could be converted to house the homeless for a fraction of what it would cost to build new housing.

Just the other day, I heard a news report in my area where they allocated money for homeless at $100,000 per bed in order to add more beds to an existing shelter in the downtown area. Yet this city has neighborhoods with cheap and unoccupied homes that could be bought to house these homeless for much less than 100,000 per bed.

[andirk]

Here in Berkeley and other SF Bay Area cities, we have imposed an "Empty Home Tax" [0][1] at some $ and % per year. As a proponent, I figured it would incentivize people to either rent or sell their unused properties which will house people and get rid of blight. Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit. Housing as a speculative asset has some pretty terrible consequences.

[0] https://www.berkeleyside.org/2022/10/23/election-2022-measur...

[1] https://rentboard.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documen...

[maeil]

> Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit

Then they're too low. It's impossible there exist no X and Y where at $X and Y% this would make them sell.

[dragonwriter]

There is no Y other than 0 which would be allowed under the California Constitution (Prop 13 limits ad valorem property taxes to a fixed 1% of allowed tax basis value, as well as limiting the annual increase in tax basis value, local entities can't add selective additional ad valorem property taxes on top of this), and there is no X which would make them sell which would not be regulatory taking without compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution (as well as provisions of the State Constitutions.)

[dragonwriter]

> Here in Berkeley and other SF Bay Area cities, we have imposed an "Empty Home Tax" [0][1] at some $ and % per year.

It's not $ and % in Berkeley, its a fixed $3,000 for the first year the unit stands vacant for 182 days or more, $6,000 in the second and subsequent years.

Oakland's measure (which is older) is also a fixed dollar amount (varies by the specific kind of unit, either $3,000 or $6,000 per year), and only applies if the property isn't occupied for at least 50 days in a year.

San Francisco's new one (like Berkeley's, passed in 2023 and would have gone into effect for 2024 with payments in 2025) was struck down as a violation o both the Federal and State Constitution, so until and unless that decision is overturned on appeal, it effectively doesn't exist.

> I figured it would incentivize people to either rent or sell their unused properties which will house people and get rid of blight. Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit.

Well, the only significant one that is in effect at all (Berkeley's) hasn't had much time to have an impact (it only applies to rental properties with units vacant for more than 182 days in a calendar year, and it went into effect Jan. 1, 2024, with the first payments due in 2025 based on 2024 vacancies.)

[cudgy]

I don’t disagree that speculation on a critical resource like housing is a really harmful phenomena. Another concern is when people use housing as a store of value for diversity in their portfolio. These long term “investors” are less likely to care whether their houses are rented or occupied as they have enough wealth to weather the loss of revenue or even fluctuations of the asset prices.

The empty home tax is a great idea, but my guess is the tax/fee is not significant enough to change investor behavior. Or possibly it’s not being enforced at the level it should be?

[dbspin]

I think the principle is solid though. Tax should effectively be 100% of the market value of the property after a certain point though - say one year.

[dragonwriter]

If you want to do that, you have to first pass a federal Constitutional amendment repealing the 5th Amendment (well, just the part requiring just compensation for takings), or reverse the existing jurisprudence on regulatory takings. And while the current Supreme Court is unusually willing to toss precedent, its ideological alignment is more on the side that would read the takings clause restrictions more expansively, so you're back to an amendment.

[dragonwriter]

> Meanwhile, large chunks of cities have relatively affordable, but not as attractive neighborhoods with homes that could be converted to house the homeless for a fraction of what it would cost to build new housing.

If they are "relatively affordable, but not as attractive" they are probably largely housing people currently, and not available to house the homeless.

If they are "in total blight, with abandoned neighborhoods, with windows blown out", they've probably also been stripped, structurally compromised, and contaminated with hazardous materials, and already sheltering squattors, and would need to be cleared, cleaned up, demolished, and have new housing built, making it a more expensive (excluding whatever differences there are in land costs) effort to use that space for housing than other places which might still require demolition and new construction, but not the clearing effort.

> Just the other day, I heard a news report in my area where they allocated money for homeless at $100,000 per bed in order to add more beds to an existing shelter in the downtown area. Yet this city has neighborhoods with cheap and unoccupied homes that could be bought to house these homeless for much less than 100,000 per bed.

I suspect if you research what the $100,000 covers, much of it is stuff that would still need to be done after buying the units. At least that's been the case most of the times I've seen comparisons like this.

[cudgy]

> they've probably also been stripped, structurally compromised, and contaminated with hazardous materials, and already sheltering squattors, and would need to be cleared, cleaned up, demolished, and have new housing built,

Seems like you’re looking for any and all reasons to establish such a high standard for any housing for homeless people that literally sleep on the ground on top of a plastic bag that creating housing for them is too expensive.

In my opinion, this type of analysis is that the root of the problem. There is no perfect solution, but building high quality housing meeting the latest standards of the city planning committee for 1% of the homeless while leaving 99% out on the street is not a useful solution.

[immibis]

> and already sheltering squattors

i.e. already providing housing to someone who would otherwise be homeless

[ANewFormation]

I don't think it's people just wanting to live in 'popular' neighborhoods, but safe neighborhoods. In the places you're describing you don't go out after dark, crime is common, and you also get to enjoy things like SUVs slowly cruising around at 1am with sound systems more fit for a stadium than a car.

In places, like most countries in Asia, where crime rates are vastly lower, you'll see far greater levels of socioeconomic mixing with defacto mansions near rather modest houses. The same is also true to some degree in rural areas in the states, where you'll see a trailer on a couple of acres with a truck husk or two in the front yard right beside a house that you'd be more inclined to call an 'estate.'

[immibis]

Transport affects this. Berlin has a pretty extensive network that gets you from any part to any other part in an hour or less. It's thought to be a factor in why the rents rise uniformly instead of rising a lot in the middle.