Here in the UK there are lots of people complaining that locals are being priced out of their own coastal towns, as city folk are buying up properties as second homes. But when the time comes to sell, those locals are perfectly happy to take the money.
Most of today's problems are caused by people who want to have their cake and eat it.
The people that complain aren't probably the ones taking the money, but the ones that can no longer afford to buy a "first home" in their (increasingly deserted and dehumanized) hometown.
I'm for taxing "nth-homes" exponentially to n. It would only hurt speculators who overall destroy value anyway. If you'll be using a house for two weeks a year, you should rent it.
> I'm for taxing "nth-homes" exponentially to n. It would only hurt speculators who overall destroy value anyway. If you'll be using a house for two weeks a year, you should rent it.
Who are they supposed to rent from?
How much time do I have to spend in a second or third residence to make you happy? Does it matter what I'm doing when I'm there?
BTW - Intel designs processors in the hope that folks will want to buy them and let Intel make a profit. How is housing speculation any different?
Care to elaborate how that works for urbanism, esp. in coastal zones?
"Discovery" is not even an apt word to use here. It connotes there is some "optimal" price towards which supply and demand will converge no matter what, just speculation will help that happen faster. In the real world, urbanistic speculation promotes overdevelopment, which greatly affects quality of landscape and living environment, thus effectively -and, what's worse, irreversibly- changing the value of the land.
It's apparently okay for folks to rent two weeks a year and okay for someone to rent to said folks. Yet it's unacceptable for someone to own and use two weeks a year.
However, a huge fraction of the "stay there two weeks a year" folks try to rent the other weeks. So you distinguishing between folks who try to rent a secondary house all but two weeks a year and folks who try to rent a secondary house all but two weeks a year.
That seems a bit subtle. Perhaps you can elaborate.
It's apparently okay for folks to rent two weeks a year and okay for someone to rent to said folks
a huge fraction of the "stay there two weeks a year" folks try to rent the other weeks
I disagree. Few people maintain a property only to rent it for two weeks a year. Once you bother to rent it, you try to do it for as long as possible. On the other hand, people who buy one, two, ... n houses for vacationing or speculating purposes can often afford to have them empty.
In any event, that's irrelevant to my point. Be them a huge or tiny fraction, I'm not so much against those. A house that gets occupied, by owners or renters, for most of the year, serves a genuine need.
Here in the UK there are lots of people complaining that locals are being priced out of their own coastal towns, as city folk are buying up properties as second homes. But when the time comes to sell, those locals are perfectly happy to take the money.
Most of today's problems are caused by people who want to have their cake and eat it.