Anonymous wrote:Many cities have "homestead" exemptions, which are property tax cuts for people who actually live in their homes.

All it takes is for a politician to say that we should "cut property taxes" for residents. Everyone will vote for it since the absentee landlords live in Russia and the Middle-East. Then raise property taxes on everyone else. If the absentee landlords are happy paying extra property taxes, then fine. At least they are contributing extra to the city's budget.

The problem is that the "homestead exemptions" are also a means for landlords to pay more taxes. Typically people who own rental houses/property are more affluent and politically connected. So I doubt it would be able to pass. If you tried to only make the tax apply to "vacant"properties, then there is the question of what makes a property "vacant" and how do you prove it?

My understanding is that in Vancouver they passed a tax on foreign buyers. I am not sure that such a tax would be legal in the U.S., particularly considering that the U.S. has Bilateral Investment Treaties with most countries that typically prohibit this type of targeted taxation of foreign investment. It could also potentially violate the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.

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.

This. DC is already most the tenant friendly city in the nation. Just ask any landlord in DC who had tried to evict someone who hasnt paid rent in 6 months. it ridiculous. People need to either move to places they can afford or shut up.Ownership rights are fundamental to this country. And yes I am a liberal, but also living in the real world.

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.

Yes, and a lot of them live in the wealthy parts of Montgomery County in single-family, detached houses. For example, Westbard, East Bethesda, Somerset, and Town of Chevy Chase. For some reason, they believe that they should get to control what other people do with their property.

DC proper is immune to this ghost owner phenomenon. Since 2011 DC will impose a 5% tax on vacant property. At a minimum a rich foreigner who buys in would have to rent it out.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/otr-vacant-real-property

Mayfair is practically Russian now. I lived near there for a bit and the kids playing with us at the St James Park were usually with their Russian nannies.

All our friends with kids lived in other places. Mayfair and Kensington are not like Capitol Hill or even Georgetown. It's like living on Embassy Row I guess is the closest we have to it.

There are a lot of family-friendly areas in London.

Anonymous wrote: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.

On Capitol Hill there are dozens of rowhouses used only occasionally for lobbying-related purposes. They are owned by the likes of former Members of Congress, lobbyists, trade associations, PACs, religious organizations, and foreign nationals. Then there are the scores of AirBNBs.

Let's ask Arlington whether they would be okay with people buying houses, paying property taxes and not sending kids to the public schools. I suspect they would love that.

Different dynamic in places like NOVA where the schools are excellent and even the wealthy use them than even DC, where the schools are mediocre to bad, and lots of people with money go private.

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

I'd love to find a foreign investor willing to buy our house. We've contributed to our city for 30 plus years and there payback is a historical 2017 tax increase, the same year federal and state taxes are down by 3.7%.

Why should long time contributing residents care since we get kicked in the butt?

This is a Manhattan thing

Many cities have "homestead" exemptions, which are property tax cuts for people who actually live in their homes.

All it takes is for a politician to say that we should "cut property taxes" for residents. Everyone will vote for it since the absentee landlords live in Russia and the Middle-East. Then raise property taxes on everyone else. If the absentee landlords are happy paying extra property taxes, then fine. At least they are contributing extra to the city's budget.

It's true that Chelsea and Kensington have become ghost towns. It's eerie walking around what I remember as vibrant.

I'm a Londoner who now lives here so I know both markets. I don't know DC as well so I don't know whether DC is immune to this, but there are a lot of reasons I can think of why London is very different and the same issues may well not arise here. First, London (including the suburbs) is huge, and the way the city works has always been that there is much less residential space in the centre. There are flats and some huge expensive houses, but this is not at all where families live. That is not the same in DC - many families here choose to live in the suburbs but it is affordable (for those who would otherwise live in, say, Bethesda) to live in Capitol Hill, or Dupont Circle - they would just have a smaller house or apartment. In London that has never really been true. So the areas in which foreign buyers are buying are not really the family areas. That said, property prices in London are crazy and the fact that it has been a desirable place for foreign buyers has not helped that at all. My house is close to the centre but not right in the centre (think zone 2, if you know the Tube system) and prices there have soared in the last 5-10 years, meaning that there are very few young families now buying in the area, and instead it is becoming more of place for wealthy empty-nesters, a few very high earners and some foreign buyers (usually they live there, though, not just investors).
Also, when the article talks about not contributing to the local community, they don't mean through taxes or school involvement because we don't have high property taxes in the UK as that is not how schools are funded, and nobody with a home of that value in those areas would be sending their children to the local public schools. Again, another thing that is different about London is how economically diverse every area in the city is, because there are council-owned and low-income housing in all areas, so you will have low-income housing in the same apartment building or next to apartments worth millions. That mix does not seem to be the same here in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

DC actually does. I attended a Board of Trade conference and they talked about the money coming into DC. DC is considered a very safe investment.