The proposed vacancy tax in San Francisco aimed to address the issue of over 60,000 vacant housing units believed to be reserved by corporate owners as speculative investments instead of being utilized as homes. Former Supervisor Dean Preston emphasized the intent to discourage this practice among large landlords. The tax would apply to multi-unit properties left vacant for over 182 days, excluding certain categories such as single-family homes. However, opponents challenged its effectiveness, arguing it would not significantly reduce vacancies and criticized its implications for homeowners.
The concern of all the advocates behind [the tax] was these properties where the homes just aren't being used as homes for people.
The tax was meant to target large corporate landlords and real estate spectators who might purchase homes but hold them off the market.
Opponents argued the tax would ultimately apply to fewer units than the city predicted and wouldn't address barriers to constructing new housing.
The solution at hand is not the right one because the courts said so. The right move should be to work on actually building housing.
Collection
[
|
...
]