Page 49 - amm2

Continued from page CS-24
real estate either solely to create profits or perhaps to park money with the intent of avoiding the clutches of the Russian (or American) tax collector.
If the vacancy taxes do not serve to make the empty units more accessible, then cities could even go a step further, as Barcelona has been threatening. A CityLab article outlined Barcelona’s strategy: “Fill vacant rental units with tenants or we will take over your properties, the city is warning landlords.” While taking the intent of a vacancy tax a step further, “Barcelona’s latest affordable housing tool” is a measure we should consider here so that more existing housing units can do what they are supposed to do: namely, house people.
ANTI-FLIPPING PROVISIONS
If housing is a human right, then the main purpose of housing for people to live in. While people may build up equity and even intergenerational wealth as a byproduct of fulfilling housing’s main utility – e.g., living in it – using housing primarily as an investment vehicle or as a means to profiteer is entirely another matter altogether, despite Professor Lens’s failing to acknowledge the difference.
Hot real estate markets often seem to encourage a kind of land-rush mentality, which give rise to a form of FOMOOP – fear of missing out on profits. Yet purchasing a house, slapping on a coat of paint, making minimal upgrades, and looking for a triple-digit ROI can only contribute to a market which quickly spirals out of control and precludes more real people from having the ability to become homeowners. In short, the practice of flipping homes, often the real estate version of a get- rich-quick scheme, simply fuels speculation and contributes significantly to increased housing costs.
Placing limitations on flipping homes could take various forms, including progressive taxes. A sliding scale, for example, could be created which would reduce the levels of taxes due in accordance with the length of time an individual used the home as her primary residence. Limited exceptions or exemptions could be made to consider real-world situations, like family emergencies, etc. Anti-flipping provisions and taxes would encourage housing stability; aside from the beneficial role of stability in the creation of sustainability (the word – and concept – “stability” is literally contained within “sustainability”), housing stability also furthers the public good of creating a higher level of citizen participation in community and public affairs.
If housing is a human right, then homes are for living in, not for flipping.
ANTI-HOARDING MEASURES AND ANTITRUST MEASURES
Within many societies, especially those that have pretentions to social equity or egalitarianism, the hoarding of scarce and precious resources is considered to be morally wrong. At the same time, as a society, we tend to look upon competition as a public good. Fair competition within the marketplace offers us choices, another public good (not to mention lower prices and, often, better value-for- money). Competition within the marketplace of ideas offers us the ability to create dialogue and dialectic among varying conceptions of the good life.
If housing is a scarce resource and overcrowding is a result of there not being enough of it to go around, then there should be limitations to preclude hoarding, there should be limitations on how many homes a person – or, perhaps even more importantly, a corporation -- may own. As with the suggested flipping provisions, this could also be regulated through the taxing of non-primary residence properties (in some cases the vacancy taxes would apply).
The goal is to avoid the total corporatization of housing, something which is only being accelerated with WIMBY policies touting “the magic of the Market.” Thresholds could be established to differentiate between corporate and small business “mom-and-pop” landlords, who would be subject to regulations designed to protect tenants and promote resident stability such as rent stabilization policies. Turning us into a nation of renters beholden to corporate interests and Wall St. means that financial values are necessarily placed before human values and market goods are prioritized over public goods when it comes to something which supposedly is a human right: housing.
Consequently, stronger, and stricter antitrust laws should be developed and enforced in order to prevent the further corporatization of housing, as well as to end existing corporate ownership. Corporations should be forced to divest their housing holdings, as housing trusts, co-ops and nonprofits should be put in positions (including being created within local communities, if necessary) to help assume the role currently held in many places by corporations. Instead of a corporate takeover of housing, we would be looking at a
Please turn to page CS-29
APARTMENT MANAGEMENT MAGAZINE - DECEMBER 2021 CS-27