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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]
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. [/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

An extra tax on unoccupied property would not cause it to be used as a homeless shelter. It would cause the owner to do one of two things - A. Pay the tax  or B. Sell it to some affluent person who would occupy it.  Putting more such properties on the market would likely slightly lower prices for high end properties (though only to the extent the absentee owner thing is widespread) which might have knock on ("filtering") effects further down the housing ladder.  That's all.

[/quote]

Right.  They aren't saying the property should be converted to low-income housing.  The problem is that people who buy these places as investments take property off the market that could have been used as an actual home, and distorts the market.  UMC and MC people are not able to buy a home that they would actually live in, and where they would be a part of the community.  It's a huge problem in Vancouver.  The solution usually involves taxing the shit out of residential property that's not being used as a residence. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics