My logical brain says that if you charge property owners a tax for empty dwellings, then you'll have fewer empty properties. That's how tax policies are designed: when you want less of something, you tax it, and when you want more of something you subsidize it.
The illogical part I see is an empty home costs less for government to service -- i.e. calls for police, trash pickup, sewage treatment, etc.
My question would be, how much does the government save having a house empty vs one that's occupied all year? That's not just the service cost, but also having to have on staff enough employees to provide that service.
It seems to me, the tax collected is going to be reduced as people find occupants, and the cost of those occupied homes will reduce any revenue collected making this whole scheme another "Cash for Cars" disaster.
Good comments.
By way of background, their argument is based on the lie that soaring housing costs are due to homeowners keeping the homes they buy and pay mortgages on - empty - thus reducing the supply (as if no one who spends hundreds of thousands to buy a house seeks to get a return on their investment, by either living in it or renting it out ...)
This is of course false. The cause of soaring housing prices - not just here, but nationwide - is a decade of zero interest rates and printed money by the Fed under Obama, beginning in 2012. Other central banks were induced to follow globally - thus we are in the "Everything Bubble."
Since then, the median home price nationally has increased approximately. 62%, and in Hawaii, well over 70%. These are conservative estimates at this point.
Over that same time span, the proportion of empty homes in Hawaii - according to the State, has remained constant, at about 4% of the housing stock.
This idiotic argument that empty homes are the cause of soaring housing prices is easy to see as such, but is a perfect ploy to convince the uneducated to back the tax rape of homeowners.
It is truly heinous.
Enter Vancouver, where this was enacted several years ago. Honest appraisals noted that yes, it did reduce the number of "empty homes," but it nevertheless had ZERO impact on housing affordability. Housing prices continued to increase at the same rate as neighboring suburbs without the tax. See the study from Canada I attached in the post for details.
Empty homes are not the cause of soaring housing prices, so penalizing them does not reduce housing costs. This was known BEFORE the bills were introduced here.
Finally, in the first round in the City Council when we defeated this travesty, someone wryly noted: "Next, they will determine how many rooms you have, and apply a tax penalty to empty rooms. Then, they will seek the demographics of your house, and impose DEI demands, etc. If they can override your use of your private property at the occupancy level, they can and will do all the rest."