Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.
If you read the article, they state exactly what you just said. NYC has many unoccupied apartments which are not being filled because the renters concluded that the rent would not pay for cost of upkeep. They’re not selling the properties either, though.
This is occurring in the midst of homelessness being on the rise. A law like this would be to either force the renter to put the property on the market, or fill the vacancy.
Honestly if a potential rental unit won’t cover the costs associated with renting it, I can’t think about how salable it’s going to be. Seems like a market failure and my guess is that it probably has to do with the extensive regulations on rentals in NYC and how hard it is to get rid of a bad tenant.
It may not be salable to a renter but it’s probably going to still be salable to people who actually need a place to live.
Also, yes, plenty of landlords would be screwed into a situation where they’ll lose money either way and will just lose more money from holding onto the property than from selling.
I doubt that. If a properly is salable and isn’t rentable, a landlord will generally just sell it.
What you are describing is the same problem though. If you sell it and someone comes in and renovates it for use as a primary residence, then it is no longer affordable housing.
The point I’m trying to make is that if renting the property out is a net loss and whoever owns it is required to rent it out, there’s almost no reason for a person who intends to comply with the law to want to own the property. Forget selling - why would anyone even take it for free if it was just a permanent money sink?
Forget selling - why would anyone even take it for free if it was just a permanent money sink
Because it’s a place to live in without having rent being arbitrarily dictated by some random dude. It’s instead a tax you pay based on who you vote for.
The idea is that properties beyond the first get taxed more heavily. So if you’re going to buy an investment property, you better damn well make it attractive to rent.
Perhaps landowning as an “investment” is a shit idea, and that propety should be owned by HUD, or whatever regional equivalent.
…why would anyone even take it for free…?
So they could live in it. Why does it have to be a money sink for the new owners if they get it for a good price (or even for free)?