Some San Diego City Council members are considering a variety of progressive proposals aimed at cutting housing costs, including an additional tax on owners of empty lots or landlords with unoccupied units.
The idea is money from the tax could be used to fund construction for subsidized housing and encourage landowners to build new housing or sell to someone who will.
Oakland has a similar tax, and Los Angeles voters are scheduled to consider what city officials there call “an empty homes tax” in 2022. It isn’t decided exactly how San Diego’s version of a vacancy tax would work.
Q: Should San Diego establish some type of vacancy tax?
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: Few U.S. cities have implemented a vacancy tax so there is no clear record that such a tax can significantly improve the local housing situation. Defining and identifying the rental units and properties that are subject to the tax and setting the criteria for exemptions will be challenging. Expanding housing subsidies may be desirable, but vacancy tax proponents will need to explain why placing the funding burden on a subset of landlords is fair.
Ray Major, SANDAG
Not participating this week.
Reginald Jones, Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation
NO: While a vacancy tax is perhaps prudent in certain localities, it would be a regressive measure in San Diego. Most vacant, infield development sites in the city are concentrated in economically challenged neighborhoods—primarily council districts four, eight and nine. Infield development is stifled in these areas by building costs for unsubsidized, affordable housing compared to attainable market sales or rental rates. Examining policy barriers to development should be the priority instead of tax measures
Lynn Reaser, Point Loma Nazarene University
NO: This would be an egregious violation of private property rights. Vancouver’s experience offers lessons. While vacant units have declined, the impact on total supply has been small. Various exemptions, such as for renovation, hospitalizations, and estate sales, have been deemed necessary. Other owners have just chosen to pay the tax. In San Diego, only about 2 percent of the city’s total housing units might be forced on the market, not enough to offset the harm imposed.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: Not a good idea to follow the dysfunctional actions of Oakland and Los Angeles. Raising taxes and fees on ownership will result in costs passed onto customer tenants. High fees, regulations and long lead time to approve building already emburden San Diego housing prices by 40 percent. Additional taxes will further punish small investors and compel land into corporate ownership. It is disingenuous to impose more taxes and fees expecting “affordable” housing to be the result.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: The vacancy rate in San Diego is low. The imposition of vacancy taxes is unlikely to add many units of occupiable inventory. Better to encourage the construction of new housing. The city is doing a commendable job on this front. I also anticipate that tampering with private property rights in this way will only serve to open the city to litigation, perhaps ultimately costing the city far more than they might collect in vacancy taxes.
Phil Blair, Manpower
NO: Taxing someone for not making their land or real estate available for use seems unfair and contradictory. No owner should be taxed into selling their property or occupying it. A case could be made that the empty condos in downtown San Diego that are used for investments or vacation homes are paying more than their fair share of taxes and HOA fees versus public services they are consuming. City, county and state governments should review their underutilized assets and sell them to the public would be a start to freeing up developable land.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
YES: The tax probably won’t make a difference in terms of unoccupied units, given the low vacancy rate and high rents in San Diego. There is a high opportunity cost to keep units off the market. A tax on undeveloped land could have a higher impact, as a shortage of buildable land is one thing that is limiting the supply of housing. A tax on vacant land could spur development or sale of the land to developers, particularly for infill land.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: Raising taxes and fees is not going to provide lower rents. When costs go up, they go up for everyone. If someone has a vacation home and it is not rented out, are we going to tax them and hit them with fees when it is not in use? Creating a vacancy tax or fee will have negative financial consequences and will not help with housing. This is not good for our economy.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
YES: San Diego has a housing shortage. Pricing increases consistently outpace wages. Yet, look downtown and along the coast; there is an abundance of empty, expensive real estate. Most expensive homes and condos in San Diego are purchased as investments by the global wealthy. Taxes on unused real estate and empty lots will not solve the crisis but may incentivize local occupancy (renting out investment properties) or serve to directly fund new housing.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
NO: We make it impossible for some landlords to collect rent and then wonder why they’re leaving some properties vacant. If we want to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to reduce the cost to property owners of renting or building instead of trying to increase the cost of leaving properties vacant. Adding more regulations and restrictions, even if well-intended, can sometimes make the outcome worse for everybody.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: Property taxes are a sufficient incentive for owners to either occupy the property, rent it out, or in the case of empty lots, develop it. California already has the highest taxes. We are chasing individuals with resources and employers out of state. I’m a supporter of many progressive agendas, especially for housing. I believe we need to decrease — not increase — regulations and bureaucracy to reduce the cost of housing and of doing business in California, as Texas has done.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: On one side of the pendulum, we make it so hard to get approvals to develop anything with so many hurdles including NIMBYs (not in my backyard), the California Coastal Commission, not to mention local plans, zoning and building codes, impact fees and more, and on the other side we are going to tax someone who doesn’t try and run this gauntlet of development obstacles on their own timetable? We forbid evictions, but require property taxes on time? It’s simply too much market interference.
Jamie Moraga, IntelliSolutions
NO: Imposing another tax is not a solution. It likely will result in higher costs passed on to the end-user and doesn’t address the primary issue. If our state and local officials want to make an impact on affordable housing then look at California Environmental Quality Act reform, relax zoning, reduce development and regulation red tape, and create incentives (carrot versus stick approach).
Have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com.
Follow me on Twitter: @PhillipMolnar
"type" - Google News
February 19, 2021 at 08:00PM
https://ift.tt/3udY8Hj
Should San Diego establish some type of vacancy tax? - The San Diego Union-Tribune
"type" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WhN8Zg
https://ift.tt/2YrjQdq
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Should San Diego establish some type of vacancy tax? - The San Diego Union-Tribune"
Post a Comment