Why? Because apparently they need some more incentive to keep units occupied. Also, even though a property might be vacant, there’s still imputed rental income there. Its owner is just receiving it in the form of enjoying the unit for himself instead of receiving an actual rent check from a tenant. That imputed rent ought to be taxed like any other income.
That’s why San Francisco implemented a vacant storefront tax.
But getting commercial landlords to comply has been a struggle.
https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2023/06/01/few-retailers-respond-to-sfs-new-vacancy-tax-as-only-2-6-pay-up/
I was just in SF a month ago for the Dead & Co shows, and it really is astonishing how empty a lot of storefronts are, especially where we were staying up near North Beach/FW. Also too, the lack of late night food; in all the years I’ve been going to SF, you could always count on a noodle bar in Chinatown at 12-1a to be open, but not anymore. Not really anything except fast food. COVID wrecked that town. I’ve also never seen so few homeless people walking around, but I didn’t head over to Oakland.
It’s not just San Francisco.
Vancouver BC and nearby towns have a similar problem, and are working towards their own empty storefront tax.
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-metro-municipalities-to-consider-taxing-vacant-commercial-sites
p.s. You gotta know where the late night eateries are.
Here’s a decent list https://sf.eater.com/maps/best-late-night-food-drinks-restaurants-san-francisco
they could repurpose those buildings (difficult but possible) to dwellings, which would revitalize the downtown businesses - but no, they’ll hold out desperately for a return to office that, if it was going to happen, would have happened already.
Meanwhile, there ain’t enough housing. Everyone pays more and the core rots.
The storefronts being talked about are already zoned mixed use, it’s really just the first floor street side storefronts that are barren, with residential apartments 2nd floor on up.
You want to repurpose stores into housing? That’s a costly and terrible idea.
Nope. I want core buildings that are vacant to be repurposed into housing. Keep the commercial spaces at the bottom, once that building is revamped for tenancy they’ll want those commercial spaces.
What “core buildings”? Converting an office block to residential wouldn’t be financially viable, you’d be better off knocking it down and starting again. Most commercial buildings have one set of toilets per floor, for example. That’s not going to work with say 8 apartments per floor.
Also if you’re making them into low cost housing, good luck getting that commercial space filled.
spoken like a real landlord expecting the populus to do what you want just because you want it.
that entire concept is about to fail spectacularly.
you’re wrong, btw, it’s not infeasible. it’s not easy, but you just made up your mind already and started pushing bullshit. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/analysis-heres-what-it-would-take-to-turn-empty-office-buildings-into-residential-housing
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/24/1189403058/downtown-real-estate-housing-offices
What did I say that’s “like a real landlord” exactly? That converting business offices into homes is almost prohibitively expensive and not worth it and you’re better off just knocking the building down and starting again? Landlords say that?
can’t be done, not going to work, doesn’t even bother reading the links that show it can be done, it can work, it’s just not as profitable as office space.
but if the office space workers don’t come back, you’re left where we are today, empty fucking buildings and loads of unhoused people.
DO THE GODDAMNED MATH, and if you’re gonna make assertions, back them up with citations otherwise I’m dubious about your premise.