
Vancouver plans to tax empty properties 1% of their assessed value - huangc10
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/vancouver-wields-c-10-000-a-day-fine-in-crackdown-on-empty-homes
======
beagle3
Intelectual Property (especially patents and copyrights) should also be taxed
at 1% of their assessed/declared value. And a single infringer should never be
liable for more than the assessed value.

Not because patents are empty, but because this would create the incentive for
patent owners to assess a real value to them, and not "bajillion dollars",
which they do now.

~~~
reitanqild
This really seems like a great idea!

Anyone see any reason why it shouldn't be?

~~~
simonbw
Patents and trademarks maybe, but copyright? You have copyright on basically
anything you create. Should I pay taxes on everything I put on github? On
essays I write? What if I'm a famous artist? If I make some artwork to go in
my living room, should I really pay 1% of the assessed value of that every
year? If I write a book, is it not enough to pay taxes on the income I get by
selling my book? Should I really have to pay taxes on it to keep it out of the
public domain?

~~~
bostonvaulter2
Who said anything about copywright?

~~~
jahnu
> Intelectual Property (especially patents and copyrights)

------
reneherse
Shameless plug, for my just-released "fake home occupancy as a service", where
my family and I charge you only 0.5% of the property value to satisfy the
government's occupancy requirements. Contact info in my profile.

~~~
r00fus
So you have someone pick up mail and make it look lived-in, but why would
someone not just rent it out then?

Why pay for your service (assuming it's not tongue-in-cheek) when you can pay
for a property manager (lets be generous and say 10%) and also get rental
income to offset the investment?

Ultimately, that's why the city is doing this; Whether the property is rented
or owner-occupied, there will be a consumer who is adding to the economy.

UK/London really has a problem with non-occupance - they should definitely
follow suit.

~~~
charlesdm
Most investor owners really don't care for the yield. They want to hold for
capital appreciation. And rentals are annoying, dealing with tennants. Stuff
breaks.

Would you care if you purchased a $1m home cash to flip it in a few years for
$1.4m?

~~~
oli5679
That's the definition of a bubble - asset detached from fundamental value.

~~~
charlesdm
That's how a lot of investors make money:

1\. Pick a hot up and coming city.

2\. Buy 5 properties at $1m each.

3\. Sell in 2-4 years for double the value, preferably paying no tax on the
capital gain at all if you (somehow) can.

Rinse and repeat. It's what happened in London in 2008-2014, etc.

You just, as an investor, need to be aware it's a bubble.

~~~
jseliger
_Rinse and repeat. It 's what happened in London in 2008-2014, etc._

Yeah, that worked really well for me in 2004 – 2009.

~~~
charlesdm
Property is one of those things where people are irrational about purchasing,
which is good if you want to make money. Some people don't even care about the
price -- they want to buy in 201X, and buy a property they shall.

If you believe property to be (significantly) overvalued, then you should rent
instead of buy. If you're at the end of a "boom", then it's not unreasonable
to wait it out and see how prices progress. Low interest rates also tend to
push residential prices higher, because people can pay off more principal
monthly vs less if rates are higher. When buying property it's almost always
better to buy when rates are high and refinance later than to buy when rates
are low.

Buying high and selling low is also definitely a thing. That doesn't
necessarily mean you can't find a good deal somewhere (you can), but it'll be
much harder.

Tldr: Unlike what most people believe, property is not a "sure thing"
investment.

------
occamrazor
A fair approach is the Swiss one. Every property is taxed as if it is rented
out at market rates, no matter whether it is rented, owner-occupied, or
vacant. On the other hand there are (almost) no taxes on the value of the
property. This removes most distortions in the rental market.

~~~
pzone
That's a beautiful solution. Why is it so hard to get intelligent legislation
like this passed in the USA?

~~~
pjc50
Switzerland has much more of a sense of unity than the US, which is
perpetually at war with itself.

It's also surprisingly egalitarian, or at least against _conspicuous_
inequality; you can accumulate a fortune in a Swiss bank, but you can't build
a mansion that annoys your neighbors.

~~~
kgwgk
Switzerland also has less population than New Jersey and it's less than twice
as large.

~~~
dopamean
Being in a smaller country seems great sometimes.

~~~
harryh
The original vision for the US had relatively powerful small states and a
relatively less powerful federal government. There are a lot of reasons to
think this is still a pretty good idea.

------
eli
In DC vacant homes are taxed at 5% assessed value and "blighted" homes at 10%.
It's the city's main weapon against vacant properties. People complain that
enforcement is uneven or that sneaky developers find loopholes, but it seems
like a good program overall.

~~~
titanomachy
Wow, that's an incredibly high tax! I bet it works pretty well, I'd want to
offload that property damned fast if I couldn't rent it.

~~~
eli
I wonder how many people end up actually paying it, but at the very least it's
got to make it inconvenient and risky to own vacant property.

------
brandur
I wonder how they picked the magic number of $10,000. (Edit: as mentioned
below, the figure is actually 1% assessment.)

Vancouver real estate prices jumped 20% in 2015 -- a $200k gain on a $1M
house. If pricing trends continue along that trajectory then Vancouver real
estate still looks like a great investment even if you just eat the entire
tax.

Still, I'm impressed by how quickly Vancouver is moving forward with these
measures (going into effect Jan 1st!). They're sorely needed, and it's great
that they don't have to sit in limbo for years before being enacted.

~~~
Zyst
>I wonder how they picked the magic number of $10,000.

As per the article: They didn't, it's 1% of the property value. The title is
misleading.

~~~
brandur
Thanks, I missed that. It's strangely written because it re-iterates the
$10,000 figure in the first paragraph of the article, but then notes 1% in the
second.

------
tendersej
While I think it is a step in the good direction, I am skeptical as to how
successful this measure will be.

The problem at stake is that Chinese buyers are not buying property in
Vancouver for speculative investment purposes only.

They see these properties as safe stores of value in order to diversify their
risk profile in case the situation in Mainland China or their own financial
situation goes down the gutter,

and / or to support their future potential effort to gain Canadian residency /
citizenship for themselves or their kids,

and / or to vacation outside of mainland china once in a while.

Sure, this tax will hurt some of them, but the number of Mainland Chinese
people with the means to write off such an amount as the cost of security is
massive.

Source: lived in Mainland China for a few years, worked for this specific
demographic.

~~~
ringwalt
If they're not just in it for short-term speculation, then they can rent the
house out and hire someone to manage it. Make some more profit while
contributing to the Vancouver economy and rental market.

~~~
tendersej
This would go against the ideas of being able to go to Vancouver on a whim,
and finding things as they were left, or being able to jump on a plane in case
of Mainland China Meltdown and directly move into their house/flat. Those
apartments are not meant to be rented, they are safe places.

Contributing to the Vancouver economy and rental market? This demographic
could not care less, this does not factor in their decisions.

(I have only empirical evidence of this mindset, but I would be willing to
expand on what I base my reasoning on.)

------
nacho2sweet
They are going to try and tie in AirBnB regulation with this as well (sort
of). Since places wouldn't be considered occupied when you have 20 of them
renting them out as full time AirBNBs.

To get around it you will need a business license for each unit, which is also
taxed. Business license #'s must be displayed on the temporary rentals website
under the listing. Business licenses can only be obtained with permission from
your strata. They think they can free up another 2000+ rentals this way as
well.

AirBNB is running an insane ad campaign here that mostly pisses off every
Vancouverite I know in my echo chamber of EVERYONE UNDER 35.

I work at one of the big Universities here. It is crazy biking in the summer
through affluent ghost neighborhoods. Lots of the older big houses that were
tore down were rentals to like 6-8 students at a time, or had basement suites.
Now they are empty boxy white McMansions.

------
system16
Many people complaining that "1% is nothing to Chinese millionaires" are
missing the point. These people didn't get rich by throwing their money away.
Yes, they can easily afford an extra $10k or $20k or even more a year, but
this combined with the recent 15% tax makes Vancouver a lot less attractive.
After that last tax, foreign investors are already getting spooked and
starting to flood Toronto's housing market instead - this too will have an
effect. It's a great start, and I hope to see it in Toronto and other cities
as well.

~~~
spangry
This is a good observation, and supported by even a casual glance at
international macro over the past 35 years. "Hot money" flows very quickly in
countries with deregulated captial markets.

------
RowanH
Wouldn't be sad if that was implemented in NZ - same problems here of
ridiculous price rises = land banking. Seeing empty (million dollar +) houses
around you is surreal and totally against community spirit we're so widely
known for. Good move Vancouver !

~~~
EdwardDiego
I really really really hope that Winston Peters polls well with this as a
policy so John Key will appropriate it.

------
huangc10
I grew up in Vancouver and I think this law is necessary (maybe). The big
question here is...how do they tell if the house is unoccupied or if the owner
is on an extended vacation? Can it really be enforced?

~~~
mahyarm
Well with a gov't power monopoly, they can do things like check power and
water utility usage. You can also look at tax return address records for the
BC income tax part. Driver license / BCID / immigration records are another.
You can also do a 'prove you have a resident in X months or be assessed fines'
like many HOAs and mortgage agreements do for various things.

Policies over large numbers aren't about %100 enforcement, a general behavior
modification is considered a success usually.

~~~
charlesdm
They do this in Monaco as well. I read in an article a while back that some
nonresidents have automated timers to turn on/off the lights, turn on the
heating, water, etc.

~~~
shermablanca
I was going to say this. These rules will drive investment in home automation.
I'm also willing to bet that a large portion of the revenue generated from
this scheme will be spent on the manpower necessary to enforce it.

That being said I'm happy to be proven wrong, but can we expect any sort of
data to support a hypothesis? I'm not sure as I'm unfamiliar with Canada's
policies on access to public data.

~~~
charlesdm
> I'm also willing to bet that a large portion of the revenue generated from
> this scheme will be spent on the manpower necessary to enforce it.

Yep. You can see that with wealth taxes. Most countries that have wealth taxes
(e.g. France) make close to nothing from them, because it's inefficient to
verify and collect all the data to properly levy the tax, and you need a lot
of civil servants for that.

~~~
doikor
The goal in this case isn't to make money but to have more apartments/houses
for rent (and hopefully lower the prices too)

------
jorblumesea
So they will find someone to show up every week or two and turn on lights on,
add some furniture, moving things around etc. I feel like the city of
Vancouver is going to always lose the free market game of cat and mouse.

~~~
fencepost
No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or
you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least
30 days. Enforcement isn't based on whether the lights are on or not.

And I'd assume that if you're declaring it as your principal residence but
you're registered elsewhere for little things like voting it may trigger
investigation that could get Very Expensive if you are determined to be lying.

~~~
rsync
"No, I'm pretty sure you have to either declare it as a principal residence or
you have to rent it out for at least 6 months a year with leases of at least
30 days. "

I don't understand - what if it's neither ?

What if you are a plain old canadian who has a home in Vancouver and (for
instance) a home in Golden ?

It's not at all unreasonable to have a home that:

a) is not your primary residence

b) you live in for 2-3 months of the year

c) you have no intention of renting out because you go there regularly or
sporadically

What does one do in that circumstance ?

~~~
caylus
Pay the tax. Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast
majority of the time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately
want to live there imposes a negative externality on the city, which you need
to pay for.

~~~
rsync
"Owning a home in a crowded city, not living in it the vast majority of the
time, and refusing to rent it out to people who desperately want to live there
imposes a negative externality on the city"

It is _proposed_ that doing so imposes a negative externality.

That proposal is not without counterpoints, however.

Specifically: that the owners of those homes not only pay their _full property
taxes already_ , but they impose fewer costs on the infrastructure of the city
while not being present. They don't drive on the roads or walk on the trails
or use the public restrooms, etc.

Look, I proposed a hypothetical situation[1] that has nothing at all to do
with Chinese speculators buying up housing assets in a safe haven market. I
proposed an unintended consequence on an otherwise innocent, well meaning
actor. It's very interesting to note that the response is, basically, "too bad
for them".

[1] I don't live in Canada.

~~~
kspaans
I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why
people would want to live there. ;)

I think you're right there is probably isn't a loonie cost to the city that
can be recouped with this vacancy tax. But I also think your counter-point is
moot. Vancouver isn't trying to keep revenues up, it's trying to encourage a
certain behaviour, namely more housing and rentals on the market.

While I do think this vacancy tax is a good idea that could help out
affordability in Vancouver, I agree with you that it's far from the best that
Vancouver could do and is really only addressing the symptoms rather than the
cause.

~~~
rsync
"I'm suspicious of statement [1] given that you know where Golden is and why
people would want to live there. ;)"

I'm a skier :)

------
cperciva
I expect to see a thriving "rental" market. How is a poor home owner expected
to know that the person they rented their house to wasn't actually living
there?

~~~
the_watcher
Can you clarify this? Are you saying that homeowners will create fake "rental"
contracts with straw man renters, and then when fined, provide the rental
contract as evidence that they tried to comply? My guess is that the city will
simply take the position that the onus is on the homeowner to ensure the
renter is actually there, which is the correct approach if the concern is that
homeowners would create straw man renters.

~~~
cperciva
Yes, I'm talking about straw man renters. Considering that the non-compliance
penalty would likely end up being _several times the value of the property_
(1% per day, and you can bet that it will take more than a few months before
self-declarations are challenged), I suspect that this bylaw would get thrown
out or heavily rewritten by the courts.

------
baybal2
When I was living there in 2014, I made a guess that 1/3 of Coal Harbor
appartments were unoccupied or unsold by counting dark windows.

My guesstimates were not far from what the city hall counted in 2015.

B.T.W. I'm no longer living in Vancouver

~~~
elchief
Ya if you stand at Georgia and Denman on a clear evening, say 9 PM, 3/4 of the
West End will have lights on, and 1/4 of Coal Harbour will. It's a ghost town.

------
bhc
Is a flat rate fine a good idea in this case?

I imagine an investor keeping his or her $30M mansion just as a hedge against
RMB depreciation and keeping it empty will think nothing of the $10,000 fine.

~~~
elchief
it's 1% of the previous year's assessed value. $10,000 was an example

[http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/vancouver-introduces-
empty...](http://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/vancouver-introduces-empty-homes-
tax-framework-as-rental-housing-crisis-persists.aspx)

------
ww520
Why don't they just build more? Flood the market with supply and see how the
price goes.

~~~
Tiktaalik
A fair question, but it assumes that they aren't already doing this. There is
already a great deal of new supply creation and there has been for decades.
Vancouver has nimby tendencies just like any other city, but it's not SF.
There is lots of new condo construction.

The problem with a supply only solution is that supply takes time to create,
and there are limits to the rate of supply creation (ie. how many trades are
available). Even if city government really made a push to increase the pace of
supply, they only be able to move the needle slightly, and it'll take years
for that supply to appear. If the speculative demand is overwhelming it might
not have a noticeable affect. I would say this has been the case for the last
several years where Vancouver housing starts climbed to the highest it has
ever been and yet prices climbed ever higher.

If you want to solve the problem quickly, you need to not only increase
supply, but also have a look at curbing speculative demand.

------
charlesdm
I understand some cities have exuberant property values, for various reasons.
Is it that great of a city? I've never been, but what makes Vancouver special
to see such high value increases?

~~~
cossatot
Canada's housing bubble hasn't yet popped, and prices are high in many places.

Vancouver itself is attractive to investors because it has a very mild
climate, is close to Seattle and the rest of the U.S. West Coast is a short
flight, and it's much closer to Asia than the rest of Canada is.

It's also a very beautiful place with lots of amenities for those living there
rather than overseas investors or occasional business travelers.

------
huangc10
I want to clarify that the $10,000 is not a fixed value. It is simply the 1%
assessed value of the house. However, most houses in Vancouver are greater
than 1 million.

------
bufordsharkley
This _is_ an incentive to demolish a home in order to drive the assessment
down (and keep ownership of the valuable land). Right?

------
dghughes
>Lie about it? That’ll be C$10,000 a day in fines.

Ouch!

I think you should have to live in your home at least six months of the year
(sounds weird!) that would also appease snowbirds.

If the owner can't be there for six months of the year then require the owner
to rent or lease it.

~~~
derefr
Interestingly, something similar is already enforced for Alaskan oil tax
credits: you have to live in Alaska at least six months of the year to receive
them. One could probably look to their enforcement system.

------
mahyarm
I'm really surprised that this was implemented into law. I remember suggesting
it on twitter without hearing anyone say it before a couple of years ago. But
I'm guessing what happened is other places might have similar laws.

------
mrfusion
Is their an exception if you're trying to sell your house?

~~~
colechristensen
I would hope not. The whole idea is to lower prices, what better way to lower
prices than to tax you for holding out for more money?

------
radicaldreamer
They really need to crack down on black money flooding into the Canadian
economy. This seems like a quick way to assuage the criticism without
addressing the core issue.

~~~
colechristensen
One way to crack down is making it less attractive to bring in such money
which this seems precisely tailored to do.

------
mcguire
In the rural US, it's reasonably common to bulldoze unused agricultural
buildings like silos and barns (and old houses on the property) to reduce the
property value and thus property taxes.

It's also somewhat common to fine owners of unused urban houses because they
attract "transients" and cause other assorted problems.

------
baybal2
Another thing about Vancouver is the staggering amount of brand new real
estate being unsold for years.

Every developer thinks that one day there will be a naive Chindonesian/Eastern
European nouveau riche that will buy it no matter the cost. And yes, such
people were coming in great numbers

------
gt2
Read something recent about vacant properties in Amsterdam:

[http://nltimes.nl/2016/09/29/amsterdam-fine-vacant-
buildings...](http://nltimes.nl/2016/09/29/amsterdam-fine-vacant-buildings/)

------
MR4D
Wow. Should be interesting to see what happens in the next recession. My guess
is that property values will get hammered down, and the city will lose much
more than 1%. Not to mention the money people will lose selling property in
exacerbated conditions.

------
flukus
I'd be worried about unintended side effects here. A lot of places might get
rented out to the poor to avoid a fine, but the rental arrangements might be
shorter term and force the poor to move more frequently.

~~~
likeapaper
Why would that be the case? These places are currently not being rented at
all. Why would people favour short-term arrangements? I own 2 apartments and
rent one of them (mostly to students). I look for tenants who can stay for
longer periods so I don't have to spend a lot of my time finding new people.

~~~
flukus
We don't know why they're empty. A lot could very well be "I'll lower the rent
until I can find someone to pay more".

~~~
HelloNurse
"I'll lower the rent until I can find someone to pay more" is the very
definition of free market; a free market in which rent rates stabilize
downwards, as socially desirable.

Attempting to rent the house for a shorter time is simply going to restrict
the target market to transient residents who plan to move away shortly (e.g.
students), which is rather orthogonal to being rich or poor.

Owners need to seek a balance between not renting at all, or renting very
cheaply, and accepting longer-term contracts; it's never a unilateral
decision.

------
diyseguy
I wonder if the tax will apply to unused office space too

------
SilasX
Anyone know how hard of a "token effort" you have to make to get a home
classified as "used"?

~~~
jacalata
Show them a rental contract to someone for at least six months of each year.
If they're fake, hope none of your neighbours dislike you.

------
mikeash
Is this supposed to sound like a lot? My house is taxed at about 1% annually
and that seems normalish.

~~~
alexland
This is in addition to standard property taxes.

~~~
mikeash
That would bump mine up to about 2% total, which still doesn't look
particularly unusual.

------
perseusprime11
Does anyone know how empty properties are handled in U.S? Do you still end up
paying property taxes?

~~~
e15ctr0n
Generally speaking, a homeowner pays the full property taxes if the home is
not the primary residence. (Some states offer to reduce the property taxes if
the home is the primary residence; this is known as a homestead exemption.)

On top of the property taxes, the homeowner also pays insurance (home + hazard
+ flood) and the mortgage (principal + interest). If the home is part of an
HOA, monthly fees to the HOA are also due. At all times the homeowner is
responsible for the full upkeep of house. For example, tree trimming, fence
repair, lawn maintenance, etc.

If troublemakers identify a house that remains empty most of the year, be
prepared for them to move in secretly and indulge in nefarious activities
(like setting up a marijuana grow operation in a state where that is illegal).

All in all, an empty property is a headache to maintain. A professional
property manager helps, at which point you may as well rent the damn thing
out.

------
meganvito
I think it is the government to be blamed failed to give a proper direction of
the hot money.

~~~
meganvito
Namely the incompetence in other sectors.

------
notadoc
Doubt a 1% tax is going to deflect any of the foreign funds parking, but it's
a start.

------
ranprieur
They should just legalize squatting.

~~~
science4sail
That's definitely one of the more anarchistic approaches, especially if you
combine it with adverse possession. The absentee owners will either have to
worry about the squatters "stealing" their million-dollar houses or will have
to hire locals as security guards. Either way there's some more money being
recycled back into the local economy.

------
mrfusion
What about vacation homes though?

~~~
scott_karana
What about them? Mean value of a home in Vancouver is $1.4 million. ;)

How could speculative empty homes be distinguished?

------
muninn_
Told ya

------
techxit
This is great (although it's not enough) and more cities should do it. It's an
effective use of public policy and a powerful statement and I'm thrilled to
see it.

This is the good kind of nationalism, the kind where people band together to
defeat the global elite and the upper class/0.1% instead of letting them
divide-and-conquer us (Red States vs. Blue, white vs. black, immigrant vs.
native, Boomers vs. Millennials).

I wish that our recent display of nationalism in the US had not been one of
the disgusting kind.

~~~
murbard2
Have you considered that these people payed for their house fair and square
and that it's profoundly unfair to charge them just because you and others
don't like what they chose to do with it?

~~~
20andup
I am on the same boat as these people that can't afford a home with these
property prices. But, I don't blame other people for having more than me. The
concept of private property is that anyone can do whatever they want with
their property.

~~~
curried_haskell
The fundamental flaw with this is, you don't exist in a vacuum. This all has
effects on the city and on everyone else who lives in it. At a certain point,
no, they can't do "whatever they want" because ultimately it does affect other
people.

~~~
20andup
This "At a certain point" is, however, subjective. Who can say your "point" is
right or wrong. Some people have more tolerance than others. Having a mob
mentality of dictating what those limits are is dangerous in my opinion.

I would not oppose having a quantitative measure of how empty homes ultimately
harm Vancouver's economy in the long term. I think that would be a much more
constructive argument to implement measures to curb this trend.

~~~
mistermann
> Who can say your "point" is right or wrong.

We've kind of decided on using a democratic process, which indeed is a form of
mob rule.

As for the danger of this approach....so multi-millionaires have one less
global city they can buy property in completely hassle free....I think they'll
find a way to survive.

~~~
20andup
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy)

"Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the
people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority", and the rule of
passion over reason, just as oligarchy ("rule of a few") is aristocracy ("rule
of the best") spoiled by corruption, and tyranny is monarchy spoiled by lack
of virtue. Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern,
informal term "mobocracy", which arose in the 18th century as a colloquial
neologism."

------
rdmcfee
The title is misleading. The tax is apparently 1% of property value. $10,000
would be the tax on a $1M home.

~~~
BDGC
A typical home in Vancouver BC is $1.4M[0], so if anything it's an
understatement.

[0] [http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-
columbia/vancouve...](http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-
columbia/vancouver-real-estate-house-prices-1.3564528)

~~~
darkstar999
Wow. This is what happens when it's too easy to borrow money.

~~~
dmix
Possibly, but only easy to borrow money to buy homes...rather than build more
homes, otherwise that'd drive prices down.

~~~
titanomachy
There's lots of development, but it takes time to see the effects of that. The
recent spike in prices has been extremely fast, up by 20% in 2015. Also, the
city has to approve any increases in density, which doesn't happen overnight.
Faster than silicon valley, though.

------
jestersidekick
So I could get paid to escape Trump for 4 years? This is looking pretty
awesome

~~~
darkstar999
Would you want a bunch of conservative Canadians flocking to America every
time they get an elected official they don't like? Why do you think Canada
wants you?

------
conanbatt
"I manufacture T-shirts. Hand made T-shirts which are not spectacular, but
kind of unique. I have been selling them for a long time, but in the past few
years, people from other places are buying all my T-shirts, more than the ones
I can make. I increased prices because of it, but I still sell all the
T-shirts I have. Maybe i can make more T-shirts, but right now this is the
amount I can make. Maybe, i should tell Bob to go check if my customers are
using the T-shirt, and if they are not using it, well, they must pay Bob or
Bob will take the T-shirt away. "

~~~
titanomachy
We're talking about regulating the use of a limited-supply common good: the
land in a city. The residents of that city have the authority to regulate the
use of that land to ensure that it is providing the desired benefits, in this
case housing. They mechanism by which the residents can regulate land use is
taxation imposed by an elected municipal government.

More broadly: the only sense in which one can "own" property is within the
framework that society has created. If there was no society or government,
your land title would mean nothing and anyone with more physical power than
you would take your home as soon as they so desired. Fortunately, we live
within a civilized society which enables ownership in a sense other than
immediate possession. However, that framework of ownership has a caveat that
allow property to be reclaimed if the public good demands it (cf. eminent
domain). The framework _could_ have been built without that escape hatch, but
that would have caused its own problems.

This example isn't specifically eminent domain, but the same principle is at
play: regulation of common goods by a collective. Any introductory class in
game theory will provide half a dozen examples of why this is necessary.

~~~
conanbatt
There are many points where I disagree, and I wrote several but prefer to keep
it short.

This is a tax to gather funds, and the housing situation is a collateral.

This tax revenue is not going to be used towards any cause, let alone
efficiently, to reduce the housing problem.

If this tax is levied, and then economists see that it is ineffectual to
housing, or even makes it worse, but the tax does produce revenue, it will not
be reversed.

If the housing situation improves in the future either because of this tax, or
because of market conditions (like more dwelling units being built, or change
in global trends of property) this tax will not be removed.

This extra tax revenue does not come with a reduction of taxes in other
areas.(it is not a shift of the tax burden, its an increase).

A short list to at least question the intentions and effects of such policy:

1) There is an ill-shaped enemy that must pay (Rich foreigners) 2) It uses a
justification that applies to many other use cases but its only applied here
(we can decide to tax you on what you do with your property, and the only one
we do right now is to you X group, because you do Y.) 3) It doesnt represent
an understanding or a solution to the underlying problem.

~~~
conanbatt
EDIT: Like seriously, why would an investor buy property and not rent it out
at all? Just lose money?

~~~
kspaans
Maybe it's a larger home (say 5 bedrooms) and it's not near a university or
college so students wouldn't want to live there, and the market for huge
rentals like that isn't very good. Or maybe the market rent for the type of
house is lower than the expected price appreciation /and/ you can sell it for
me if it hasn't been lived in, so it's worthwhile to sit & flip rather than
rent it out.

------
maverick_iceman
Instead of maintaining a facade that people still have a right to property
they might as well announce that government owns everything, you know just
like communist countries.

~~~
mdanger007
What is property without laws and enforcement to protect it?

------
eggy
How can you be said to own anything if you are forced, basically 'extorted' by
government, into occupying your own house or not? I guess it is whether you
believe in property rights. If you inspect your property to see squatters or
others haven't criminally occupied it, and you maintain it so that it does not
cause any harm or damage to your neighbors homes, why this? More pressure to
not own/maintain and just rent or leave the community. How can a neighborhood
that's basically empty fetch any high rents for the units that are not empty
and for rent?

~~~
likeapaper
Just out of curiosity are you Canadian, from the US, or other? I ask because
there is a cultural difference between what people in the US and Canada expect
from their government.

The essence of the problem is the low occupancy rate and rapid inflation of
housing prices in Vancouver, fueled largely by foreign nationals buying
Vancouver property as an investment rather than actually living there. This
prices Canadians out of the market.

Generally the Canadian attitude to government focuses on asking it to solve
these kinds of problems in an "interventionist/activist" model: intervene in
the market to affect change.

In the US, I found people generally prefer the government to focus on
"freedom-to": erring on the side of providing people with too much liberty to
do as they please, rather than too little.

I think this is just a cultural difference and not so easy for Americans to
understand. I hope this comment was helpful in conveying the Canadian
perspective.

~~~
eggy
I am American, and thank you for your viewpoint. Does a 'Canadian attitude to
government' translate into enforceable legislature? Even in the US, it's a mix
of attitudes, but one consistent law needs to prevail.

I have lived overseas for 8 years, and in Montreal for a year. As a
libertarian I do believe you should be free to do things, unless those things
impinge on somebody else's freedoms.

Being priced out by foreign investment does not seem to be a reason to have
government intervention. Empty houses en masse should lead to big drops in
property values after the initial buying spree spike.

Keeping your home up to code and paying taxes is one thing, but enforcing
occupancy is another. How about if you travel 6 months out of the year for
work? Why should you be penalized/fined for not staying home?

What is the period of occupancy - 4 days a week; 1 week per month; 2 months
per year? Who decides, and how to gauge it?

I always think of the following ab adsurdum-like argument: Most crimes occur
at night. Government is responsible for everyone's safety. Curfew is mandated
for your own good from sundown to sunrise. Just a thought.

~~~
mahyarm
There are many places in the world that have close to none in property taxes.
You just a flat rate city services / council tax. Property tax was partially
created to incentivize the usage of unused land to reduce the externality of
it.

------
yummyfajitas
It's hardly clear how this will help much. Vancouver has a population of about
600k people. According to the article, 10k houses are empty. This will, at
best, increase the housing supply by 1.6%.

Meanwhile, Vancouver is extremely low density - 13k people/square mile, about
1/3 that of high-rise megacities like...Brooklyn.

Great work guys! Scapegoating a few rich Chinese people with second homes
while ignoring the massive self-inflicted harm that locals do.

~~~
wvenable
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouverism)

~~~
snrplfth
Vancouverism-as-high-density only applies to the small downtown area, and tiny
slices of land near transit stations. Nearly all the city's area is single-
family homes on tenth-acre lots.

