Thread

1. soonnow · 1789971698 · focus · HN ↗

   To add a b it of context. They do not want to confiscate housing. They do want to pay landlords, though below current (very high) rates. Also this would only apply to private real-estate companies not individual owners.

   And they can't govern alone, so I think it's unlikely that this plan is actually implemented as originally planned. The likely coalition would contain 3 parties.

   1. dirasieb · 1789972590 · focus · HN ↗

      >it's not confiscation, you're just forced to sell at a price i decide is fair

      sound logic

      1. monegator · 1789977192 · focus · HN ↗

         Given it affects PE funds that have gouged up all the supply, yes that is sound logic.

         My province's capital has 43% of unhinabitated houses. They are not even on the market, as we are in a housing crisis. Vast majority of them are property of large housing groups that are backed by black rock and company.

         The same firms are manouvering the politicians to get approvals to build modern monstruosities, because there is a housing crisis, but they build only luxury homes thst cost too much and remain unhinabitated.

         Yes it is sound logic to force big conglomerates to dissolve by law. Law should aim for the public good.

         1. m4xp · 1789990206 · focus · HN ↗

            There should be huge taxes on empty houses. This breaks the supply demand price negotiation, if they can gauge price by 2x they dont care if they rent half the houses.

            1. Helmut10001 · 1789996413 · focus · HN ↗

               Such a law existed in San Francisco since 2022 and it was just cancelled by court order. The problem is: there are so many edge cases for empty apartments that it is impossible to account for. In Berlin, e.g., just imagine all the empty apartments in 10 years because no one wants to rent unrenovated, uninsulated apartments because of energy prices. The landlord cannot pay renovation. Forcing landlords to pay an empty apartment penalty doesn't help here.

               1. scarecrowbob · 1790007478 · focus · HN ↗

                  I am not a capitalist, but isn't that the kind of problem that capitalism would solve?

                  Wouldn't the landlords would just take a loss and sell the property to avoid penalties?

                  1. Helmut10001 · 1790008172 · focus · HN ↗

                     If there is no business model and no one wants to pay, what then? We'd have a lot of vacant properties that would need to be renovated by the city. We see this in lots of places in Germany already, where there simply aren't buyers (because of demographics, primarily). Further, if you devalue properties with such a law, then you'd have a credit/dept property - landlords couldn't pay their dept, if property prices devalue by state law. Lastly, no one would build properties anymore under such a law.

                     .. Cities also rely quite a bit on property and real estate transfer taxes. By reducing property values, cities destroy their own tax base while needing lots of additional money to renovate state-acquired, vacant properties.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.