Proposition M, “The Empty Homes Tax,” passed by 54.5% of voters in November, imposes a tax on property owners for each unit left vacant for more than 182 days in a given year, starting in 2024. It applies only to buildings with three or more units, not to single-family homes or duplexes.
The taxes start at $2,500 for units smaller than 1,000 square feet and go up to $5,000 for units over 2,000 square feet. They escalate over each subsequent year a unit is vacant, and later are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
The measure’s goal was to help alleviate the city’s punishing housing crisis by motivating property owners to rent their units, according to proponents.
But the lawsuit said that was misguided. “The government cannot compel a property-owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.
Supervisor Dean Preston, who championed Prop. M, dismissed the case as a frivolous lawsuit filed by “real estate lobbyists” displaying “a great sense of entitlement when it comes to broadly-popular and essential reforms.”
“San Francisco voters delivered a clear mandate that it is completely unacceptable to have tens of thousands of vacant homes as more than 4,000 people are living on our streets,” Preston said in a statement.
Ah, so it’s actually about forcing property owners to rent to people who will probably destroy their property.
In any case, it it isn’t unused rental properties keeping the homeless on the streets. It’s mental illness, drug addiction, and the city’s cash and legal incentives.
S.F. landlords, property owners sue to block voter-approved vacancy tax
Proposition M, “The Empty Homes Tax,” passed by 54.5% of voters in November, imposes a tax on property owners for each unit left vacant for more than 182 days in a given year, starting in 2024. It applies only to buildings with three or more units, not to single-family homes or duplexes.
The taxes start at $2,500 for units smaller than 1,000 square feet and go up to $5,000 for units over 2,000 square feet. They escalate over each subsequent year a unit is vacant, and later are adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index.
The measure’s goal was to help alleviate the city’s punishing housing crisis by motivating property owners to rent their units, according to proponents.
But the lawsuit said that was misguided. “The government cannot compel a property-owner to rent his or her property to third parties without violating” the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit said.
Supervisor Dean Preston, who championed Prop. M, dismissed the case as a frivolous lawsuit filed by “real estate lobbyists” displaying “a great sense of entitlement when it comes to broadly-popular and essential reforms.”
“San Francisco voters delivered a clear mandate that it is completely unacceptable to have tens of thousands of vacant homes as more than 4,000 people are living on our streets,” Preston said in a statement.
Ah, so it’s actually about forcing property owners to rent to people who will probably destroy their property.
In any case, it it isn’t unused rental properties keeping the homeless on the streets. It’s mental illness, drug addiction, and the city’s cash and legal incentives.
注意看细节，这个税明显是打击大资本，而不是有几个民宅的小地主，这个税完全不影响９９％投坛的小地主们。
一些大资本买了建筑就不愿意花钱修理，这是浪费社会资源
It applies only to buildings with three or more units, not to single-family homes or duplexes.