The Guardian article. Is DC immune to this London market phenomenon?

[Anonymous]

“lights-out London” where absentee owners push up property prices without contributing to the local economy.

“Today in London hundreds of thousands of people are stuck in temporary accommodation, on social housing waiting lists, or years of saving short of buying their first home. At the same time the global super-rich buy London homes like they are gold bars, as assets to appreciate rather than homes in which to live … Absentee owners should live in the house they own or sell up – or face uncapped charges until they do. No dodges or clever schemes to get round that.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/25/its-like-a-ghost-town-lights-go-out-as-foreign-owners-desert-london-homes

[Anonymous]

Who cares? If they own it, it's theirs. They have the right to live in it as much or as little as they want. It's theirs.

If you have a problem with this, then what you're in effect saying is that you believe you have claim to how someone else uses their property.

And by corollary, they are able to control yours.

[Anonymous]

Not sure how London works, but in NOVA, you would be paying a lot in property taxes, and not sending your kids to the public schools. So, there is that.

[Anonymous]

I don't think "the global super-rich" would be too concerned about that.

[Anonymous]

Vancouver had the same issue and they started fining and taxing. Its bad news when housing become speculative and lawmakers need to crack down.

[Anonymous]

I don't think DC attracts this sort of buyer. In the US, this happens more in NYC, SF, and probably Miami to a lesser extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure how London works, but in NOVA, you would be paying a lot in property taxes, and not sending your kids to the public schools. So, there is that.

They don't have property tax as such in the UK. They have a council tax, but it is not based on a current assessment of property values and as such is rather low and limited. This makes the carrying costs much, much cheaper and allows people to use UK property as a store of value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? If they own it, it's theirs. They have the right to live in it as much or as little as they want. It's theirs.

If you have a problem with this, then what you're in effect saying is that you believe you have claim to how someone else uses their property.

And by corollary, they are able to control yours.

Amen!!!!!

[Anonymous]

That's the problem though. There really ARE people (some right here) that DO believe they have a say in how others use (or don't use, in this case) their homes.

They literally think "if you buy that house and don't live in it, some homeless person or low income earner could live in it instead".

Uh, sure they could. Let them buy it then.

[Anonymous]

I would assume that eventually the ultra-rich will start investing in their own countries. It's a big world and circumstances don't stay the same forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the problem though. There really ARE people (some right here) that DO believe they have a say in how others use (or don't use, in this case) their homes.

They literally think "if you buy that house and don't live in it, some homeless person or low income earner could live in it instead".

Uh, sure they could. Let them buy it then.

Lol. You make too much sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's the problem though. There really ARE people (some right here) that DO believe they have a say in how others use (or don't use, in this case) their homes.

They literally think "if you buy that house and don't live in it, some homeless person or low income earner could live in it instead".

Uh, sure they could. Let them buy it then.

The view that property should be used the most efficiently is not contrary to natural law or even our Constitution. Jefferson was a great admirer of John Locke and incorporated many of his principles into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believed that property rights were natural rights, but only so far as ownership of the property comes out one ones productive use of the property. The view that property rights are not inviolate were later enshrined in the takings clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to take your property for a public purpose but entitles you to just compensation.

In summary, contrary to your beliefs, yes people that do not own a piece of property can and do have a say in whether it should be left un-inhabited.

[Anonymous]

Us property taxes are much higher so it's not as cheap to do this. But it's still done mostly in NYC and San Francisco.

[Anonymous]

We stayed in an AirBnB in Pimlico that was owned by an investor from Saudi Arabia. The building was gorgeous and had 8 flats but we were the only people there for two weeks according to the manager. She said the owners are rarely there and the units are vacant Even the one we used is rarely rented

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's the problem though. There really ARE people (some right here) that DO believe they have a say in how others use (or don't use, in this case) their homes.

They literally think "if you buy that house and don't live in it, some homeless person or low income earner could live in it instead".

Uh, sure they could. Let them buy it then.

The view that property should be used the most efficiently is not contrary to natural law or even our Constitution. Jefferson was a great admirer of John Locke and incorporated many of his principles into the Declaration of Independence. Locke believed that property rights were natural rights, but only so far as ownership of the property comes out one ones productive use of the property. The view that property rights are not inviolate were later enshrined in the takings clause of the Constitution, which allows the government to take your property for a public purpose but entitles you to just compensation.

In summary, contrary to your beliefs, yes people that do not own a piece of property can and do have a say in whether it should be left un-inhabited.

Do not attempt to conflate ED in the name of public good with busybodies and activists wanting "underutilized" private residential property used as homeless shelters or low income housing.

Because that's what this discussion is about. Not whether the government has a right to take private land with compensation in order to build something for the common good.

The Founders weren't keen on citizens being forced to quarter troops. They wouldn't want them forced into quartering the homeless, either.