More than 13K rent-stabilized units in NYC are sitting empty for multiple years, report finds
gothamist.com
A city Independent Budget Office report examines vacancy data from the state’s housing agency amid concerns of "warehousing."

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/12162

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.

  • @sugar_in_your_teaEnglish
    1•10 months ago

    abolition of single-family zoning

    I disagree, we should just make it less attractive. This can happen in a few ways:

    • improve mass transit, and encourage higher density along transit arteries
    • make vehicular traffic less convenient by routing it around city centers instead of through - i.e. encourages mass transit use
    • increase property tax and reduce sales tax - basically encourage using less space and using more services (i.e. rely on the local shop, not your own food storage room)

    And so on. The benefits here are varied, such as:

    • less traffic in city centers
    • more green space, since the space isn’t occupied by as many SFH
    • less road maintenance because you need fewer roads
    • healthier people since using a bicycle or walking would be more convenient than driving

    But as you noted, the above gets blocked by NIMBYs. But it is possible, as we can see in the Netherlands, which has largely reduced its vehicular traffic and improved the residential density. It wasn’t always that way, but they made a big push for it and people now don’t want to go back.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      1•10 months ago

      I totally agree that those are all good things, but I still see no real reason why the government has any business telling a homeowner who wants to split the building into a duplex that it’s illegal, because reasons.

      The political cost of actually abolishing SF zoning is definitely high though, and proposals to make SF homes less attractive are definitely more politically palatable.

      • @sugar_in_your_teaEnglish
        2•10 months ago

        Yup, it’s really dumb. SF should have virtually no SFH-exclusive zoning since they’re very much space constrained, they should have a lot more mixed zoning (i.e. shops at ground level, housing above).