Buying Airspace?

[The Two Jerseys]

But Ors, don't you know that the rich are supposed to buy insanely expensive land, build affordable housing on it, and operate at a loss like they're a charity or something?

Or how about changing the law to not allow foreign oligarchs

Adding xenophobia to the mix, lovely.

to build these ugly penthouses

That's, like, your opinion, man.

no one will occupy

Yes, better to build a single-family home in the middle of Midtown Manhattan, that's a much more effective use of land than an apartment building that can house many people!

and thereby wasting land

Name a better use for a Manhattan lot that sells for millions of dollars on the market.

I'll wait.

[Thermodolia]

But Ors, don't you know that the rich are supposed to buy insanely expensive land, build affordable housing on it, and operate at a loss like they're a charity or something?

Or how about changing the law to not allow foreign oligarchs to build these ugly penthouses no one will occupy and thereby wasting land

You tax the hell out of said buildings then. If nobody is occupying parts of the towers then you slap occupancy taxes on them. Which would remain until the buildings are occupied

[San Lumen]

Or how about changing the law to not allow foreign oligarchs

Adding xenophobia to the mix, lovely.

to build these ugly penthouses

That's, like, your opinion, man.

no one will occupy

Yes, better to build a single-family home in the middle of Midtown Manhattan, that's a much more effective use of land than an apartment building that can house many people!

and thereby wasting land

Name a better use for a Manhattan lot that sells for millions of dollars on the market.

I'll wait.

Where is the xenophobia?

These are buildings that are merely investments no one will occupy them most of the year

It drives up rent for everyone and pushes people like me out

[Thermodolia]

Scrap property taxes and bring in a land value tax and this will resolve the issue of unused buildings and lack of space.

You could have property taxes, an apartment tax for each apartment that is rented out for over $3000 a month, and a unoccupied tax.

Three possible different taxes that could make upwards of $10 million versus Banning towers.

A land value tax is better and doesn't penalize people for developing properties, it penalizes them for using land. In this case, it would also be appropriate to levy an airspace value tax along the same rationales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

Economists on both the left and the right agree it is the optimal tax. The only reason to oppose it is if you favor centralization of wealth, property, and so on.

It also penalizes speculative land holding and could revitalize rundown inner city areas.

For example, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in the United States has taxed land at a rate six times that on improvements since 1975. This policy was credited by mayor Stephen R. Reed with reducing the number of vacant structures in downtown Harrisburg from around 4,200 in 1982 to fewer than 500.

, this is functionally what is happening here. It's just a big, pretty, empty building. We know this kind of tax penalizes empty buildings and makes people want to sell them and find other sources of investment, and doesn't negatively impact property owners more than the property tax.

It also has almost perfect tax efficiency, as you cannot hide land existing in this country overseas, even if you can stash it in "Property" overseas.

The value of land is related to the value it can provide over time. This value can be measured by the ground rent that a piece of land can rent for on the market. The present value of ground-rent is the basis for land prices. A land value tax (LVT) will reduce the ground rent received by the landlord, and thus will decrease the price of land, holding all else constant. The rent charged for land may also decrease as a result of efficiency gains if speculators stop hoarding unused land.

Real estate bubbles direct savings towards rent seeking activities rather than other investments and can contribute to recessions. Advocates claim that LVT reduces the speculative element in land pricing, thereby leaving more money for productive capital investment.[23]

At sufficiently high levels, land value tax would cause real estate prices to fall by removing land rents that would otherwise become 'capitalized' into the price of real estate. It also encourages landowners to sell or relinquish titles to locations that they are not using. This might cause some landowners, especially pure landowners, to resist high land value tax rates. Landowners often possess significant political influence, so this may explain the limited spread of land value taxes so far.

This is important for the millenial generation and so on too.

That’s really not a bad idea. Thanks for bringing this to light

[Ostroeuropa]

Or how about changing the law to not allow foreign oligarchs

Adding xenophobia to the mix, lovely.

to build these ugly penthouses

That's, like, your opinion, man.

no one will occupy

Yes, better to build a single-family home in the middle of Midtown Manhattan, that's a much more effective use of land than an apartment building that can house many people!

and thereby wasting land

Name a better use for a Manhattan lot that sells for millions of dollars on the market.

I'll wait.

Property speculation like this drives up the prices in the first place, and generates economic bubbles which cause recessions.

[Thermodolia]

Adding xenophobia to the mix, lovely.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

Yes, better to build a single-family home in the middle of Midtown Manhattan, that's a much more effective use of land than an apartment building that can house many people!

Name a better use for a Manhattan lot that sells for millions of dollars on the market.

I'll wait.

Where is the xenophobia?

Hating foreigners is xenophobia.

These are buildings that are merely investments no one will occupy them most of the year

Then tax the living hell out of them. If an apartment is owned but physically unoccupied for 2 months straight than they would be required to pay an occupancy tax for each month they aren’t living in it.

[San Lumen]

Where is the xenophobia?

Hating foreigners is xenophobia.

These are buildings that are merely investments no one will occupy them most of the year

Then tax the living hell out of them. If an apartment is owned but physically unoccupied for 2 months straight than they would be required to pay an occupancy tax for each month they aren’t living in it.

I don’t hate foreigners. I don’t like rich people buying up land to build ugly towers no one will occupy and pushing people like me out of the city

I applaud such a policy But how would you enforce it?

[Thermodolia]

Hating foreigners is xenophobia.


Then tax the living hell out of them. If an apartment is owned but physically unoccupied for 2 months straight than they would be required to pay an occupancy tax for each month they aren’t living in it.

I don’t hate foreigners. I don’t like rich people buying up land to build ugly towers no one will occupy and pushing people like me out of the city

Then tax the hell out of it, use that tax revenue to build affordable housing, and inact rent controls.

You need to use the rich as a tool. You don’t get rid of them you tax the ever living shit out of them. And if they attempt to stash the money elsewhere or leave then ya charge them with a 100% of everything you own tax.

[Thermodolia]

Hating foreigners is xenophobia.


Then tax the living hell out of them. If an apartment is owned but physically unoccupied for 2 months straight than they would be required to pay an occupancy tax for each month they aren’t living in it.

I applaud such a policy But how would you enforce it?

You do know what monthly rent is right? You add a tax to that

[Ifreann]

I didn't say "available", I said "empty". Even if most aren't available, there's four times more empty houses than homeless people. There's probably space to house all the homeless.

And apartments are a type of housing.


Show me a place that did what I'm proposing and had the entire economy collapse for specifically that reason and no other.


Saying that you want to relocate the homeless doesn't really imply asking nicely.


People who need help to look after themselves should receive that help with the absolute minimum abrogation of their rights. We should not lightly take away the freedom of the mentally ill.


Homeless people need homes. What help they need after that to further improve their lives will, I'm sure, vary, but by definition they need houses.

---

I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you that you very directly that the poor are not inherently evil and destructive. I really think that this is self-evident. Moral character is not measured by wealth or income.


The aim of giving people houses is for them to have a house. By this standard it very obviously cannot possibly fail. You seem to want to expand the aim of my proposal so that you can insist it will fail, but this is obviously a bullshit move by you. "Giving people a house won't solve their mental issues!" Yeah, fucking duh, I didn't say it would. I'm not trying to solve their mental issues by giving them a house, I'm trying to give them a place to live. It's like you're telling me I shouldn't be using a hammer because it won't turn screws, but I'm not trying to turn screws, I'm trying to drive nails.

Home and house are not interchangeable words.
A house is one type of home, a type not suitable for this situation.
An apartment is a home, but it is not a house.

And you do not know how many of those are actually available.

Neither do you.

I never said all homeless people are evil and destructive.
But some clearly are. And need different treatment than those who are not.
Again different homeless need different treatment.

That is your mistake.
Some homeless are capable of mantaining a home.
Some are not.
You assume all are good.

Being homeless is not a sickness to be treated. It is a state of lacking a home. We can solve it by giving homeless people a home. You might want to deny some people a home because you have judged them to be evil, but I do not want to deny anyone a home.

Giving a home to those who are not able to maintain is not a long term solution.
We tried it. It did not work.

Schemes that house the homeless first, before addressing drug addiction or employment or anything else, have had enormously positive results. But sure, the super-compassionate governments of the 50s-70s tried, but those damnable poors just don't respect anything they get for free.

And countries that start seizing property without compensation generally have completely dysfunctional economies.
It is not good for the economy. It harms the economy. Your idea is very bad for the economy,

Fuck the economy.

---

Because these are buildings for the mega rich who will never occupy them plus they are ugly

The mega rich can have buildings, you know. Like, they’re allowed. And something being ugly is just your opinion.

They're allowed for now.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

You need to use the rich as a tool. You don’t get rid of them you tax the ever living shit out of them. And if they attempt to stash the money elsewhere or leave then ya charge them with a 100% of everything you own tax.

Damn.... and I thought I was being Marxist....

[Ethel mermania]

I’ll take things I didn’t say for 1000 please

What I said was I don’t like ugly buildings taking up valuable land and being eyesores on the skyline

Valuable land being land nobody could afford anyway. And your whining about eyesores is just that.

So all in all, these towers could be a could thing with rent control and proper taxation.

Rent control in the city does not apply to new construction. These buildings generally are not rentals, but co-ops.

most new residential construction in the city gets some sort of tax abatement. Modifying what qualifies for an abatement would raise more property taxes for the city. (And that is a tax break not a tax elimination usually for 20 years).

[The Two Jerseys]

Adding xenophobia to the mix, lovely.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

Yes, better to build a single-family home in the middle of Midtown Manhattan, that's a much more effective use of land than an apartment building that can house many people!

Name a better use for a Manhattan lot that sells for millions of dollars on the market.

I'll wait.

Where is the xenophobia?

Something something something "those goddamn furriners coming here and building on our land!"

These are buildings that are merely investments no one will occupy them most of the year

You keep saying that without one shred of proof that nobody lives there.

It drives up rent for everyone and pushes people like me out

No, millions of people wanting to live in a limited number of houses and apartments drives rent up.

That, combined with the overall high cost of living in NYC.

[Ethel mermania]

Where is the xenophobia?

Something something something "those goddamn furriners coming here and building on our land!"

These are buildings that are merely investments no one will occupy them most of the year

You keep saying that without one shred of proof that nobody lives there.

It drives up rent for everyone and pushes people like me out

No, millions of people wanting to live in a limited number of houses and apartments drives rent up.

That, combined with the overall high cost of living in NYC.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/super-ric ... d-for-nyc/

While I think San lumen's grasp of real estate economics is.... lacking. As far as having many of the apts go unoccupied for long times of the year SL is correct.

[Novus America]

Home and house are not interchangeable words.
A house is one type of home, a type not suitable for this situation.
An apartment is a home, but it is not a house.

And you do not know how many of those are actually available.

Neither do you.

I never said all homeless people are evil and destructive.
But some clearly are. And need different treatment than those who are not.
Again different homeless need different treatment.

That is your mistake.
Some homeless are capable of mantaining a home.
Some are not.
You assume all are good.

Being homeless is not a sickness to be treated. It is a state of lacking a home. We can solve it by giving homeless people a home. You might want to deny some people a home because you have judged them to be evil, but I do not want to deny anyone a home.

Giving a home to those who are not able to maintain is not a long term solution.
We tried it. It did not work.

Schemes that house the homeless first, before addressing drug addiction or employment or anything else, have had enormously positive results. But sure, the super-compassionate governments of the 50s-70s tried, but those damnable poors just don't respect anything they get for free.

And countries that start seizing property without compensation generally have completely dysfunctional economies.
It is not good for the economy. It harms the economy. Your idea is very bad for the economy,

Fuck the economy.

---

The mega rich can have buildings, you know. Like, they’re allowed. And something being ugly is just your opinion.

They're allowed for now.

“Fuck the economy”
That says it all.

And giving good person an apartment next to a bad person is not good for the good person.
Some poor people will respect the housing.
Some will not.

Those who respect it should not be harmed by those who do not respect it.

[San Lumen]

Something something something "those goddamn furriners coming here and building on our land!"

You keep saying that without one shred of proof that nobody lives there.

No, millions of people wanting to live in a limited number of houses and apartments drives rent up.

That, combined with the overall high cost of living in NYC.

https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/super-ric ... d-for-nyc/

While I think San lumen's grasp of real estate economics is.... lacking. As far as having many of the apts go unoccupied for long times of the year SL is correct.

Which is why they should be outlawed

[Ethel mermania]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/super-ric ... d-for-nyc/

While I think San lumen's grasp of real estate economics is.... lacking. As far as having many of the apts go unoccupied for long times of the year SL is correct.

Which is why they should be outlawed

People are not allowed to have second homes?

[The Two Jerseys]

https://nypost.com/2018/03/10/super-ric ... d-for-nyc/

While I think San lumen's grasp of real estate economics is.... lacking. As far as having many of the apts go unoccupied for long times of the year SL is correct.

Which is why they should be outlawed

And what will that accomplish?

[Ifreann]

Neither do you.


Being homeless is not a sickness to be treated. It is a state of lacking a home. We can solve it by giving homeless people a home. You might want to deny some people a home because you have judged them to be evil, but I do not want to deny anyone a home.


Schemes that house the homeless first, before addressing drug addiction or employment or anything else, have had enormously positive results. But sure, the super-compassionate governments of the 50s-70s tried, but those damnable poors just don't respect anything they get for free.


Fuck the economy.

---

They're allowed for now.

“Fuck the economy”
That says it all.

The economy doesn't matter. People matter. The economy improving is only good if people benefit. All people, not just the rich. The economy failing is only bad if people are hurting. All people, not just the rich.

And giving good person an apartment next to a bad person is not good for the good person.

Giving a homeless person a home is obviously good.

Why do you want so badly for people to die on the streets? You keep trying to find reasons to not give homes to the homeless, and you must understand that living on the streets isn't conducive to a long and healthy life. So fucking what if some homeless people are """bad""". That doesn't warrant being put out onto the streets.

---

Which is why they should be outlawed

People are not allowed to have second homes?

Should they be?

[San Lumen]

Which is why they should be outlawed

And what will that accomplish?

Not allowing uber rich people to buy up expensive land to build penthouses no one will use and then the building will pay people mimimum wage to maintain it.

[Ethel mermania]

And what will that accomplish?

Not allowing uber rich people to buy up expensive land to build penthouses no one will use and then the building will pay people mimimum wage to maintain it.

However The guys building the towers though are getting a union wage. And things like fire safety directors, which high rises require are not cheap. Also in NYC as you should know, even residential building workers are unionized.

[The Two Jerseys]

And what will that accomplish?

Not allowing uber rich people to buy up expensive land to build penthouses no one will use and then the building will pay people mimimum wage to maintain it.

So property tax and employment is bad?

[San Lumen]

Not allowing uber rich people to buy up expensive land to build penthouses no one will use and then the building will pay people mimimum wage to maintain it.

So property tax and employment is bad?

paying starvation wages is to maintain these eyesores built for the rich to look down upon the peasants is.

[Ifreann]

Not allowing uber rich people to buy up expensive land to build penthouses no one will use and then the building will pay people mimimum wage to maintain it.

However The guys building the towers though are getting a union wage. And things like fire safety directors, which high rises require are not cheap. Also in NYC as you should know, even residential building workers are unionized.

That people are employed to do something does not make that thing a good or smart thing to do.

[Yusseria]

But Ors, don't you know that the rich are supposed to buy insanely expensive land, build affordable housing on it, and operate at a loss like they're a charity or something?

Or how about changing the law to not allow foreign oligarchs to build these ugly penthouses no one will occupy and thereby wasting land

Yeah, rather than building it up and increasing the property value and then taxing it we should just leave the land unoccupied.