But if you're a "let's use the market and data to solve problems efficiently" kind of libertarian, then this is a nice solution.
People are doing what they want and it's being argued that it's hurting others.
That said, I've never seen a libertarian push for anything other than leaving it up to the market, even in the face of negative externalities.
No, Libertarians would not support this. The reason why there are empty properties is that there are capital controls so severe that it's more lucrative to buy a house (and not rent it) as a store of value than a currency/stock/precious asset (gold,bitcoin etc). A law -- which didn't account for the second-order detriments -- created this perversion in the market. Adding another law -- which again won't account for the second-order detriments -- is not going to fix it. Less is more, when it comes to economic law.
I know the article is about empty properties, but it's actually a lot more common to send your 18-year-old kid to study in Canada and wire him $1 million to buy a primary residence in his own name.
But it's true you can't get quite as much leverage and the dividends and capital gains are not tax deductible like they are for your primary residence.
Based on this doc, I believe Vancouver (or "Vancouver A", as distinguished from the greater metro area) has about 200k units.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/regional-planning/Pla...
It appears zoning rules, which prevent Vancouver from building up to Brooklyn levels of density (approx 3x as high), is keeping 400k units off the market.
In contrast, unoccupied housing is keeping only 10k units off the market.
But I'm sure the rich Chinese people are secretly to blame for this too.
Increasing density in response to rising populations is great. Increasing density in response to rising investor demand is what we've done already, and it's why we have incredibly lonely, dead neighbourhoods like Coal Harbour.
Creating more supply results in more units that can potentially be purchased as an investment and left empty.
If you legalized the production of housing that would no longer be true.
The problem is that adding supply takes time, there are physical limits to the rate at which supply can be added, and the level of demand is unknown.
This means it's hard to know when a supply only solution will result in decreased prices and it can take a long time. (Vancouver is not SF, it adds plenty of supply and yet there is still housing shortages and high prices)
If you want to fix the problem quickly, policies that increase supply and limit speculative demand will achieve results faster.
The inability to a) provide for yourself reasonable living accommodations, and b) the surprisingly huge spike in prices of homes due to the lack of homes that are required.
This is what a libertarian believes (disclosure: I'm a libertarian).
1) Acquiesce to high-density development, and receive zero compensation, or
2) Fight high-density development, and probably get zoning laws imposed at minimal personal cost.
You can see why this setup incentivizes people to push hard for "static neighbourhood" zoning law.
Being near a satellite nexus area of such a city, you should expect medium density development around the nexus of civic infrastructure.
Japan got how to do urban planning correct.
There are plenty of exceptions, I'm only talking about the most probable outcome.
This also doesn't address industrial building or other nuisance construction.
3) Agree to high-density rezoning, endure the construction noises and shadows and whatnot for a couple of years, then sell your house to a condo developer for a massive profit and never have to work again.
This isn't a hypothetical, I saw it happen on the street I lived on in college. The detached houses fell like dominos and were all replaced by high-rises until there were none left.
If the local city manages it, then it's a long drawn-out process of lobbying for zoning controls that apply city-wide. And offering the citizens money to vote for it might be illegal in some jurisdictions. Even if Walmart and the local citizens are okay with it, a couple hold-outs or people from other neighborhoods can delay the entire process by complaining to the zoning board.
Then I wouldn't sign those contracts or I would not move into their properties. I'd move to the outskirts of their neighborhood and build there.
Governments have a perceives authority to enforce their regulations on everyone. No one perceives Joe-blow as having the same power. It is because of this that society can keep people in check when these situations arise but no one can control the government as they are presumed to have abilities ordained allowing them to (unfairly) arbitrate these situations.
Honestly, if you take your (a) point seriously seriously, I think you have a moral prerogative to regulate the market in that way. It decreases demand and absolute prices, sure, but trying to accommodate both investment and residency is exactly what Vancouver's been doing for the last 20 years, and it's why we're where we are now. Our local GDP is largely based on real estate. It's not great.
As a libertarian I feel that protections of any free trade are the cause of most of these problems so no, I do feel that housing is meant to be an "empty investment" as you put it. I don't believe in government protectionism.
To me it looks like you are saying "I want more people to be able to afford houses" then following up with "oh that person? No they're too poor, they don't deserve a house" as that is where this sort of "necessities-as-an-investment" thinking leads. A house should only be worth what a house is worth, nothing inflated by a restriction on the homes created.
> we should regulate uses of housing that don't actually put roofs over heads
Do you think that anyone would buy a home that doesn't have a roof? I could actually see a few situations for doing this (installing your own roof after purchasing is one). I don't think government should mandate safety scissors. This is again another protectionist mentality that ruins freedoms of decisions.
In my ideal world I'd go to a reputable inspector, have them inspect one of the thousands of new homes in a development, then based on their comments buy or not buy the home. No one should tell me I have to live in this home. What if I want to use it as an office for a doctors clinic that's built in the center of the town? No one should be able to tell me that isn't allowed other then the person selling me the home. Government involvement in this is a) just to increase price and b) just red tape that keeps "those people" out of "my" neighborhood.
> Honestly, if you take your (a) point seriously seriously, I think you have a moral prerogative to regulate the market in that way
I don't see how wanting someone to be allowed to build a home for themselves, or allow someone to build homes for the poor/homeless as a charitable prospect, on land that isn't currently developed requires government regulation.
> but trying to accommodate both investment and residency is exactly what Vancouver's been doing for the last 20 years, and it's why we're where we are now.
Again, I don't think a property is an investment. Then again I also don't believe in bailouts or other protectionist viewpoints. It would be beneficial to you to read up on libertarian viewpoints as your characterizations aren't correct in these cases. I don't believe any investment should be protected as every investment is to be a compensation for the risk that was taken in making it.
To a libertarian this looks like a ruling elite class oppressing the poor minority in an attempt to make themselves rich.
> Our local GDP is largely based on real estate. It's not great.
I don't see why property sale being a large percent of GDP is bad. If a country was made of 90% diamonds selling the land to diamond mines would be very profitable and as such a large percentage of the GDP would be from land sales. This isn't a necessarily bad thing. It just depends on who it's benefiting. Currently this benefits the ultra-rich and the government and that's just doesn't fit in my world view.
The thing, too, is that I agree that zoning is usually the problem with housing prices. San Francisco and the Bay Area have decided to opt out of building enough places for many decades, to the point where some communities there prefer to push jobs and businesses out and away in favour of getting higher housing prices.
But we aren't San Francisco, because we have no underlying economic engine that's driving in-migration and pushing up housing prices. We're just chilling here, broke as ever, wondering how on earth even a small condo could have gotten so out of reach.
Then there is no way that these prices are natural. These must be forced.
As far as I can tell, the idea that it is a supply problem is just an assumption, assumed simply because neither neoclassical nor Austrian economics appear to have an understanding of credit and money creation by banks (through lending, which creates deposits) that lines up with how modern banks and the real-world monetary system works.
Some of the post-Keynesian models seem to match the real-world situation a lot more. The house prices seem to be so strongly distorted by speculation based on easy access to credit that the price statistics don't correlate almost at all with the supply surveys, but does strongly correlate to the amount of money created by lending. This explains pretty well what we're seeing, including how lowering interest rates will inflate asset prices instead of stimulating the real economy. But many people refuse to believe the data and the conclusions it leads to just on principal, because the idea of market prices not being set by supply and demand is blasphemy!
This is also coupled with how great of a place Australia is to live to create a pretty high bar in housing prices. To be honest, if some things where changed about Australia I'd move there. It's got low crime, great politics so far, and a lot of things I like. It's just too focused on a select few areas and too pricey.
I don't know enough about Canada to say why they have restrictive zoning laws. In the US, it's mostly government-backed mortgage programs and covert racism.
I don't care how rich the Chinese are; those properties would be demolished, rebuilt as apartments, and rented if it were allowed. Because the value of the property is directly proportional to its expected profit. It's only when the government disconnects the two that you ignore the rental profit. The Chinese government's currency controls probably don't help, either: The Chinese are willing to lose money as long as it's free from their government's currency controls.
Does Canada offer government-backed loans that are available to foreigners?
But what happens if you just chop down SFH and rebuild with higher density, and you don't also put restrictions on investing in the new units? You just end up with the problem we have now. We're building tons. Our local GDP is largely based around real estate. Not that we don't have a NIMBY problem — but there's only so much building you can do before you look around and feel like you just built more empty houses for people who don't live here.
Though, it seems like a condominium complex that is 50% empty would give you a greater density of neighbors than a SFH suburb that is 50% empty. And you can get the Chinese to pay for your new roof, to boot.
Somehow I doubt even the Chinese have enough money to turn a high-density city into a scene from 28 Days Later, though.