More than 13K rent-stabilized units in NYC are sitting empty for multiple years, report finds
gothamist.com
A city Independent Budget Office report examines vacancy data from the state’s housing agency amid concerns of "warehousing."

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162

Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
    181·
    1 year ago

    People require to land to live on, it is a basic necessity, and basic necessities absolutely should not be considered an investment.

      • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
        9·
        1 year ago

        What should people invest in then?

        Literally any other type of business.

        How is land ownership handled?

        People should still be able to own land for their own personal use. Land used to extract wealth on the other hand should be more tightly controlled. We should ideally implement georgism to free up the land that the rich own and to increase land use efficiency. After that ownership should look pretty much identical.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
            121·
            1 year ago

            You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

            If the “safest most attainable way” to get wealth requires others to be homeless or unable to afford a basic necessity then it isn’t not worth it.

            And it arguably isn’t the most attainable way, because so many people are being priced out of owning a home because of the current system’s failures.

            Other than living on it, why would someone want to own land?

            To use it for a business or enjoyment. I’m not sure where you are going with this.

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
                7·
                1 year ago

                This is wealth extraction

                Yup. I’m ok with some kinds, just not the kind that fucks over the creation/distribution of basic necessities.

                So you’re okay with some rich person owning acreage as long as it’s for their own enjoyment

                Yeah that’s bullshit too and shouldn’t be allowed. Even for personal use/enjoyment there should be a hard limit.

                but not for a normal dude who has an investment property and is holding out for a renter that will adequately cover his costs and generate some profit?

                That’s bullshit too.

                  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
                    31·
                    1 year ago

                    Like what?

                    Anything not needed for human survival.

                    There are infinite ways to make money with land that are more useless and exploitative to society than renting a house.

                    This is just a whataboutism fallacy.

                    What’s so morally reprehensible about someone working hard and being fiscally responsible to provide a service that people actually need

                    Landlords do no more to provide housing than ticket scalpers do to provide concert tickets.

                    Landlords don’t work hard. Owning is not a job that provides for society.

                    Do you realize someone has to actually build/maintain/renovate houses?

                    I sure am aware. And I’m always aware that the people who do those things aren’t landlords. They’re construction workers and maintenance workers.

                    The primary reason most houses exist is because someone took a personal risk in the hopes of coming out ahead from where they were originally.

                    The landlords take no such risk because the demand for housing is so high that any vacancies can be filled as quick as they like.

                    They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

                    Funny how “what the market can bare” equates to entire generations being priced out of owning a home.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    They can only charge what the market will bear after all.

                    When what you’re selling is a limited resource necessary for survival, “what the market will bear” easily becomes “all the money you make”. Otherwise you end up homeless and won’t be making any money.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            You’ve just eliminated perhaps the safest, most attainable method for the average person to achieve passive income.

            And? Should we be trying to help people earn income for doing dick all?

              • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.websiteEnglish
                4·
                1 year ago

                it can take 30 years to pay it off.

                It can take 30 years for the tenants to pay it off. Landlords aren’t paying for that out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s instead ultimately the tenants.

                Throughout all that time they are responsible for maintenance, insurance and a litany of other things to keep it from falling into disrepair.

                They hire people to do that, they don’t do it themselves.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.caEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                What do you think “passive” means in the term “passive income”? I don’t care if it becomes harder to earn “passive income”, especially if it’s coming from people just doing what is necessary to survive.