New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.
In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.
And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.
Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.
Look at this vancouver example when people want to live there only part time because it has become hip with the world's wealthy and retired: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-est...
New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.
In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.
And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.
Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.