These houses are heavily subsidized by the lowest property taxes on the continent, and one of the lowest in the world. They can enjoy the increases in land value and not have to pay their fair share in taxes. Meanwhile, these same people fight tooth and nail to make it hard to increase density for others. I have little sympathy for them. They should downsize their home if they’re not using the space.
I don’t disagree that A) these people live incredibly privileged lives and are reaping the benefits of an economic period that will never come back and B) increasing housing density should be a priority across pretty much the whole Western World. I just disagree with the argument that the solution to this is simply forcing private homeowners to host unhoused people.
Great, but no one is proposing what you’re opposed to.
What I’m saying is that they’re able to hoard their huge homes all to themselves, without having renters, because we subsidize them to do so. They should be paying for the increase in land value with higher taxes. Instead they get to profit from increasing land value, deny other people a place to live, and, to top it off, not pay the fair price in taxes for all that unused space. Would correcting that be “forcing” them to quarter people? Obviously not.
Did you read the title of this post? That’s exactly what’s being implied. If anything, you’re moving the goalposts in the discussion.
A person with no access to housing. Most people would refer to one as “homeless”.
