you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 81 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    50% vacancy tax. Any property that is vacant for more than 50% of the year would require the owner to pay 50% of the assessed value, unless they can prove there is zero demand for the property at any price.

    Would solve the problem very quickly. It's a fair, equitable, market driven solution to the problem of real estate vacancies. But governments are much more concerned with maintaining the illusion of value, than effective land use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    We have something better called eminent domain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That would set a dangerous precedent though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah I'm just kidding that would be a chaotic nightmare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Eminent domain requires the government to compensate the land owner with the "fair market value" for taking their land. As the "fair market value" is so overinflated that no one can afford to rent the space, taking vacant properties through eminent domain is not a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago

    There’s an old fast food restaurant near my neighborhood, boarded up, trash everyone, it’s a eyesore to the community.

    Do you not have local ordinances requiring property owners to maintain them? Here's language in a local cities code:

    All buildings, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. All devices or safeguards which are required by this Building Code in a building when erected, altered or repaired, shall be maintained in good working order. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of the owner's building.

    Not maintaining it would result in fines, which the property owner could pay, but the city could either keep increasing the fines to the point where its cheaper for the property owner to sell it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Land value tax would fix this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @Zoboomafoo @J12 reforms don't work. Change the system and change the rules. #eattherich

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    No thank you, I don't subscribe to revolutionary ideologies that want to tear down the system then figure out what to build on the ashes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Not all anti-capitalist ideologies are like that. Some of them have a clear vision of what to build: workplace democracy, social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of land and natural resources

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments