Kansas Crimson

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2024 6:35 pm A consortium of mountain towns will push Colorado lawmakers this year to pass legislation that would enable local governments to ask voters to tax homes that sit empty for most of the year.

There are no communities in Colorado that tax empty homes, but the growing challenge of building affordable housing for workers in mountain communities where real estate prices are soaring and as many as 40% of homes are unoccupied by full-time residents is fueling creative thinking around new revenue sources.

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/colorado ... the%20year.

Property taxes already tax those homes.

The government doesn't need to control how long a person occupies a home they own. That's ridiculous.


Why don't you use some of your resources and start building affordable housing for this void of housing that needs filled? There are several people here who could give you some tips and how to go about getting started. Instead of complaining and waiting for someone else to fix it for you. Use it as an opportunity to improve your life and others. Even if you only build a multifamily development for 20-40 units of affordable housing. You'd create jobs, earn yourself some money, AND create affordable housing for those you're concerned about.

Of course, it'd be work. So probably not something you're interested in? But if you pulled it off a time or two, you could be enjoying weekday tee times and living life instead of a career in amateur messageboard advocacy.

oh nooo youre so CoNDeSceNdinG

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 8:48 am

Don't be too hard on yourself, every time I use Apple Pay I'm reminded that I forgot to invent it!

(What was I not thinking?)

Just zooming out a tad…

It does seem paradoxical or something to be experiencing a housing crisis in communities in which up to 40% of the houses are sitting vacant.

In terms of public policy, at some point something has to be tried. The opportunity of evil rich people to hoard housing inventory has to be weighted against the opportunity of rest of the community at large to not freeze to death.

And while I dunno if the answer is def gonna be a vacancy tax, it’s at least…something?

Seriously, going into the details, how would they enforce the vacancy tax? How long is too long to leave a house vacant? Two weeks, one month? What if the owner goes on vacation? What’s to stop about 4 homeowners to get together and have someone take turns “living” in their houses to get around the occupancy restrictions?

I agree that something needs to be done, but this idea is half baked, at best

pretty sure ous is fully baked

^^^^

You can’t smoke weed all day if you don’t start in the morning.

And to think some posters say I lack ambition!

For real tho, zsn those are good questions. You’re once again demonstrating why you’re a quality poster (beyond just a good avatar)

I think this initiative is just some general proposal at the state level that’ll clear the way for communities to figure out the details in a way that hopefully suits each community best.

I think “vacancy” will be defined by if it’s not a full time residency (if the owner spends more than half a donut of the year living elsewhere), or possibly number of weeks each unit sits unoccupied.

Re: “what if the owner goes on vacation,” the thing is, so many of these are occupied ONLY when the owner is on vacation. Locals call these homes the “1-2-10s:” one owner, two weekends a year, ten million dollars. (They could save SO much money by simply renting a hotel for those couple weekends, but I guess that’s not what this is about)

If four homeowners get together and take turns living there, well, pretty sure you just invented timeshares. But, even if that’s the case, that would still be a helluva lot more time these homes would be actually occupied than the current sitch.

And, where this affects the communities at large, and also where the evil rich homeowners obliviously fuss about it, is when yall go out for dinner and complain that it takes over an hour to be served chicken tenders, and then start ranting about how no one wants to work these days, as if the issue is something BUT working class folks being pushed out of these communities due overwhelmingly to increasingly scarce housing.

But, I also realize this is a pretty specific issue, and there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.

when you live in an expensive ass resort town, there are specific problems that come with that choice.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 10:47 am Just zooming out a tad…

It does seem paradoxical or something to be experiencing a housing crisis in communities in which up to 40% of the houses are sitting vacant.

In terms of public policy, at some point something has to be tried. The opportunity of evil rich people to hoard housing inventory has to be weighted against the opportunity of rest of the community at large to not freeze to death.

And while I dunno if the answer is def gonna be a vacancy tax, it’s at least…something?

Zooming back in...

Just an fyi, since words and definitions matter....A dwelling not being used as a primary residence does not equal a vacant dwelling.



And then zooming out...

If you chase off the people driving development and demand, these lower wage workers (who you are concerned about their housing inventory) won't have jobs to worry about. So they'll be worrying about housing in a different market anyway.




I am being dead serious, you could use this as an opportunity. The reason already established builders aren't building affordable housing in these areas is because the profit margins are larger in higher end housing and/or in other areas.

That doesn't mean there isn't some profit in building affordable housing. It just means the people already doing this for a living see larger opportunity in other areas/segments of markets.

You could, if you were motived and competent in this field (you're not), likely accomplish what you're trying to achieve, which is larger affordable housing inventory, if you decided to get off your ass and build affordable housing units. Profit margins be damned. You'd still be able to be profitable in my opinion. But it'd be hard work, and for less money than others are making doing similar work. Which, if profits aren't your main objective would be fine. AND, if these are actually things your local politicians and constituents are seriously concerned about, be granted tax abatement programs which incentivise this type of development. They do it ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

I'm wasting my time typing these words, and I'm okay with that. But you're so far detached from reality and implementation on some of these things that it makes me want to slam my head into a wall (sometimes).

TDub wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 11:40 am when you live in an expensive ass resort town, there are specific problems that come with that choice.

And if you chase off the expense resort town people, you chase off all the jobs that are having trouble finding affordable housing.

This isn't that complicated.


They aren't actually "hoarding housing inventory", because those dwellings wouldn't even exist without the demand of the "evil rich people".

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 10:47 am Just zooming out a tad…

It does seem paradoxical or something to be experiencing a housing crisis in communities in which up to 40% of the houses are sitting vacant.

In terms of public policy, at some point something has to be tried. The opportunity of evil rich people to hoard housing inventory has to be weighted against the opportunity of rest of the community at large to not freeze to death.

And while I dunno if the answer is def gonna be a vacancy tax, it’s at least…something?

A guy I follow and quote here from time to time, Scott Galloway, aka. Prof G, admits to feeling guilty about it, but for a couple of reasons:

1. To hope his teenage sons will think it's fun to visit him in cool/fun places as they get older

2. As a wealth preservation/growth strategy, since housing might hold its value better than other assets if there's a deep recession, or worse, while also possibly gaining more value than other types of investments in a more "normal" market.

has purchased expensive homes in several markets, including Aspen, Del Ray Beach, Florida, a 3,300 sq' apt in Soho, etc.

5million dollar houses are never going to rent for $1,800 dollars a month to fuck offs like Ousdahl. No matter how mad he is that they are "vacant".

Best case for him, they'll demolish them and build 2 bedroom apartments for he and beaver to rent for $1,800 a month. It's called highest and best use of land.

It won't increase the affordable housing. It'll change the use of the land that the lowest priced (likely single family housing) inventory in these markets are used for. Developers will buy 3 adjacent homes, demolish them, and build an apartment. And then Ousdahl will bitch about the rent being too high.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:36 pm This isn't that complicated.

it’s amazing how so many threads revert back to same general theme

there are/can be legitimate questions about affordable housing, but pitching a fit about expensive vacation homes in an area that specifically exists as a rich persons playground is the wrong thread to pull to get to the conversation started.

As illy stated, without those people muchof the economy is non existent and there wouldn't be a discussion about housing. It screams entitlement to bitch about housing prices in a place that is known exclusively as a rich resort area. What do you expect? In other news, water is wet.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 1:12 pm

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:36 pm This isn't that complicated.

it’s amazing how so many threads revert back to same general theme

He got sucked into a headline. Wanting to "stick it to the evil rich people" even if it wouldn't actually work all that well OR increase inventory of affordable housing. All that would do is increase tax base marginally or the (usually smart) rich people would find ways to get around it. The rich people wouldn't dump those properties and increase affordable housing inventory.

15min of research would have proved more effective for him.

It's not exactly the same, but it's similar. Some college towns have experienced similar affordable housing issues as enrollement has continued to grow, and thus increasing the radius around the universities considered student housing areas/footprints (ie they buy the crappy single family houses and turn them into 2-3 story apartments for students to rent. Time and time again, the way to increase affordable housing that is available in these areas has shown to be tax abatement programs. It creates incentives for builders to build affordable housing instead of just more student housing. The students are always going to live the closest to campus (which is best for students AND residents, as you don't want a town of mix due to the living habits of students). So opportunity zones are created around this area and in neighboring communities.

This is done in 2 main ways that I've seen personally:

1) the delay of increasing the assessed values of those parcels for a period of time after construction is completed. A property is taxed based off of its assessed fair market value. When you buy a vacant parcel or parcel with improvements that are to be demolished, it's taxed at that value initially. After something new has been built that assessment increases almost immediately. But these communities looking for more affordable housing have created an incentive for builders by allowing this increase in assessment to defer for (often times) 5-7 years. This is a BIG deal for developers. And I've personally seen it at work at University of Illinois. These opportunity zones are created, at no cost to tax payers, and development thrives. It lessens the risk and cost of the holding period (time after development to when a property is sold or rented).
2) the communities can also entice development by a sales tax abatement program on materials used for construction. Another HUGE incentive for builders. Often this requires the materials to be purchased in the state that the development is occurring. Which is a positive on multiple fronts (for the developer and the seller of the materials).

Those two methods don't cost any real life dollars to implement.


This is how these problems are solved in real life. But some politician threw out some catchy words and caught himself an Ousdahl fish with something that'll likely never be implemented and even if it is implemented doesn't appear to do ANYTHING to increase affordable housing. It only increases the tax revenue in these areas.

Opportunity zones. Tax abatement programs. Either property tax or sales tax on materials. It's not rocket science.

...Academic researchers say it’s easier for corporate investors to keep expanding in Florida because of regulations that limit or prohibit local controls and renter protections...

Florida homes owned by corporate investors: 117,000 — and counting