Hacker News Reader

Comment by supernova87a | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious about the legal grounds for such a tax or fine.

If local zoning already governs what may be built or operated on a property, what principle allows a government to levy fines for lack of use of a property that has been built and maintained to the required zoning? (if to all other requirements, the property is not derelict, in poor condition, a blight or public nuisance?)

I didn't think that you could be compelled to be a landlord.

(By the way, Oakland also is attempting to put in place such a regulation, but to my knowledge, they have dumbed it down with so many exceptions -- elderly, destitute, social justice, etc. etc. that it's meaningless)

View on HN

The article addresses that:

"The law the city is using, which gives it scope to fine negligent landlords after two years of leaving a property vacant, has in fact been in place since 2007 (before Colau’s election) but wasn’t implemented until during her tenure."

If a law's enacted by voters, and no law of a higher political body contradicts it, then that's what the government is allowed to do.

Well, that's basically what I'm interested in. Whether this law would stand if challenged with a constitutional due process (or other appropriate) claim.

Can only state the case for Germany, here, the constitution explicitly states that "Ownership entails responsibilities" and that ownership is not absolute but subject to greater good considerations.

If someone would implement a law or rule like the one in Barcelona (or probably Vancouver) in Germany, it would probably be based on such a consideration.

IANAL, mind.

Article 33.3 of the Spanish Constitution:

"3. Nadie podrá ser privado de sus bienes y derechos sino por causa justificada de utilidad pública o interés social, mediante la correspondiente indemnización y de conformidad con lo dispuesto por las leyes."

"No one shall be deprived of their goods and rights but for a justified reason of public utility or social interest, with fitting compensation and conforming to applicable laws".

It's the exact same: social interest and public utility are enshrined in the constitution for the exercise of eminent property.

I suppose if local zoning laws require a property to be used for residential purposes then not using it for residential purposes would be breaking the law.

Leaving a property empty to wait for price appreciation is clearly not residential use.

That's such a gross misinterpretation of the words "use" and "purposes" in the zoning code that it's not worth replying further.

It may well be a misinterpretation of Barcelona's zoning code. Apologies if I gave you the impression that I was familiar with that law.

What I'm saying is that it would make sense to me if a zoning code (or other regulations) were to include a requirement to actually use the land/property for the designated purpose (if possible) or swiftly sell it to someone who will. That wouldn't compell anyone to be a landlord.

In my view, such a rule would be completely consistent with the usual meaning of the words "use" and "purpose" and it would be consistent with the fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com