We need a Vacancy Tax
posted by Tom Falco at 10:00 AM
YOU MAY NOT LIFT THE PHOTOS & TEXT. IT'S COPYRIGHTED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN HOWEVER SHARE A STORY ON SOCIAL MEDIA BY USING THE LINKS HERE.
For linking to this one story, just click on the time it was posted & just this story will open for sharing - only through social media. Not copying and pasting.
11 Comments:
That should not be a problem With all the funny money going around Miami.
Here in London we have a similar problem. Empty houses and flats have proliferated, especially in the more affluent parts of the city. Council tax (kind of like a property tax, but not quite) is minimal on empty properties, so wealthy people who want to someday either live here or renovate and turn a property for a profit buy and keep properties empty.
An empty property tax would have to be high enough to deter or prevent property inventorying. An even better deterrent would be compulsory purchase of any property that is empty for more than, say, a year without good reason. Then turn them into social housing.
To Chris,we do not live in a socialist country. Here you can do whatever you want with your property. Property taxes are very high in Miami already. What you mean by "compulsory purchase", I don't know, but the taxes are already high enough. Sounds like something the Cuban or Chinese governments would do! As for creating an extra tax, I don't think that would be fair, unless there is an ordinance that says properties can't be vacant for more than a certain amount of time and there is a fine if you don't comply.
Great idea! How come our founding fathers defended private property?
I am sure that North Korea under the guidance of Marx and Engels already have this!
Have you considered moving there?
Compulsory purchase=eminent domain.
Keeping perfectly good properties off the market and empty is anti-social. Either live in them, rent them out, or sell them to someone who will live in or rent it out.
The rent is too high and it hurts all the businesses. CocoWalk now has a Chase bank there. That is not what that place needs. hell it may turn into offices too now with new ownership that have great ideas.Tell them Tom how much they want for rent at the Engle BLDg Crazy.
If these places are intentionally empty, it would be nice if the owners did what the owners of Suniland did. For over a year, they allowed artist Phil Fung to use a store as his studio and a place to hold classes. I believe he paid a minimal amount of rent and the only condition was that he not do a lot of changing to the space.
There was also an article in WSJ, I believe, where a lot of shopping centers were doing this during the recession allowing pop up stores as well as artists to use the spaces. Empty stores are an eyesore and gives the idea that there is a lack of success in the area.
What is this? The Young Bolshevik League of Greater Miami? Your forcing private property owners to rent to anyone to avoid paying a tax? Absurd.
Were you reading my mind. A similar situation happened in my home town where the developers purchased properties and got rid of local renters. I believe they initiated some sort of fine for long term vacancies There are potentially some tax benefits for the owners of empty storefronts. But the more likely explanation is that landlords are willing to lose a tenant and leave a storefront empty as a form of speculation. They’ll trade a short-term loss for the chance eventually to land a much richer tenant, like a bank branch or national retail chain, which might pay a different magnitude of rent. If you’re a landlord who only cares about the almighty dollar, why would you keep renting to a local café or restaurant at five thousand or ten thousand dollars a month when you might get twenty thousand or even forty thousand dollars a month from Chase? In addition, if a landlord owns multiple properties, and we know some who do, , dropping the price on one may bring down the price for others. That suggests waiting for Marc Jacobs instead of renting to Suzie Jacobs, a local. Pretty crappy if you ask me
This is a great idea. It is not socialist to incentivize good economic behavior. For you die-hard, and brain-dead republican's spouting mantras about freedom - capatalism is and was never intended to be without limits - that is called anarchy/barbarism - systems which don't provide for a very nice society. So, some limits, some rules, must exist, and you cannot call the rules you don't like socialist (as if that's a bad word - it means for the good of society - a positive) as a means of dismissing them.
In short, you are either lying to yourself, lying to others, or so stupid that you should never speak in public.
I said good day!
@anonymus at 11:07 : you are really democratic! The leader of the North Korean Republic has a job for you. Should consider moving !
Post a Comment
<< Home