> What's even scarier is many of these units are going to remain un occupied forever. If you buy a house, and it goes up in value $50,000 per year, it might be easier to leave it vacant. The only solution is much easier zoning, and laxer building requirements.
Changes to the tax code are a better fix. Investment properties (non-primary residences) should be taxed more heavily; unoccupied properties even more so.
Recurring land value taxes would prevent people from hoarding property as an appreciating asset without putting it to productive use.
>>Recurring land value taxes would prevent people from hoarding property as an appreciating asset without putting it to productive use.
There is an awful lot of people, myself included, that don't feel vacant land is 'unproductive'. We still need trees, and places for animals to live. I for one don't want to see all available land developed.
Not vacant land vacant housing. For example there is a small apartment complex near me that was bought by an out of state investor. They moved their kids into one unit to keep an eye on the place. The rest of the units they aren't renting out. Why bother dealing with renters when the property value has more than doubled since they bought it?
Changes to the tax code are a better fix. Investment properties (non-primary residences) should be taxed more heavily; unoccupied properties even more so.
Recurring land value taxes would prevent people from hoarding property as an appreciating asset without putting it to productive use.