Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think the more accurate assertion should be residents only. Or no long term unoccupied properties so people rent them out. Or you get my home town of Vancouver[0] or you get London[1], which is even more complicated. If your not a resident, then you can deal with just renting. In asian countries where they limit ownership to only citizens or residents, and your not china, you don't see such huge property value booms, and the average citizen there can afford a property.

I think the only reason why the bay area has become another Vancouver yet is because it has the huge tech industry surge to help support the prices somewhat. Also wide anti-NIMBY regulations could help a lot too.

The consequences of autocratic regimes and their capital flight is being felt around the world [2][3].

[0] http://saeidfard.com/post/113616107456/the-decline-of-vancou... [1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/28/london-the-ci... [2] http://business.asiaone.com/news/chinese-become-biggest-fore... [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/nyregion/stream-of-foreign...




Residents only is also unfair. What if I wanted to own a place in SF?

Lots of people only live in a place part of the year.


By that behavior you constrain supply for the people who live there full time and destroy businesses that need a full time populace to live there.

Look at this vancouver example when people want to live there only part time because it has become hip with the world's wealthy and retired: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-est...

New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.

In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.

And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.

Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: