Councilor Lydia Edwards (Charlestown, East Boston, North End) today proposed taxes on property speculation as a way to keep Boston from becoming another Manhattan.
Councilors agreed to schedule a hearing on Edwards's proposal, which she made in her first formal speech to the council as a newly elected member - in November, she replaced Sal LaMattina, who retired.
Edwards said she doesn't buy the idea that all the new housing development going on in Boston now is going to do anything for the people who cannot afford even the "affordable" units developers are required to include, because it's based on the "area median income," which keeps increasing as more well off people move into the city.
"I do not believe we can build our way out this problem," especially in an era when growing numbers of units are being rented out by concerns such as Airbnb rather than being rented or sold to actual residents, she said.
Her proposed ordinance would levy fees on property flipping and units bought by foreign speculators and would limit home-share units to just one unit in owner-occupied buildings.
The funds from the fees would go to buy or build units actually affordable to Boston residents not in the market for luxury space.
"We need to play defense," as well have some "frank discussions" with developers about how Boston needs to remain affordable for all Bostonians. She said they need to adjust to the fact that they have to adjust to Boston, rather than Boston adjusting to them.
She cited her own district, where at one end a developer has proposed turning Suffolk Downs into a massive mixed-use development and where at another end the BHA is looking to let a private developer rebuild and expand the Bunker Hill project into a large mixed-income development.
"Boston is not for sale," she said. "Our future is at stake, and we have work to do. But Boston knows how to work and we will rise to this situation."
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Edwards's hearing request | 192.58 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
All speculators should be taxed
By necturus
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:24pm
Speculation in any type of property or commodity never creates wealth; it redistributes it, typically making rich people, who can afford this sort of thing, richer at everyone else's expense.
By all means tax the flippers.
It does provide nicer housing though....
By Pete Nice
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:26pm
rather than keeping dumpy properties dumpy properties.. (sometimes)
housing costs
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 9:15pm
Tito laid the groundwork. Edwards is putting the word 'bullshit' to Walsh theory we can build our way to affordable housing by building 80% luxury housing.
Those "dumpy properties" used
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 7:58am
Those "dumpy properties" used to be called "fixer uppers" and used to be the only feasible entry point to home ownership for many people.
Yep. My 2-family in Eastie
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 5:08pm
Yep. My 2-family in Eastie cost less 6 years ago than a 900sqft condo on the same block today... but it needed as much money as the sale price in repairs and updates.
I've had to be patient and space some more cosmetic things out. In the meantime I've had a place to live and an anchor in the community.
And since I actually live here, I'm motivated to do real repairs that should last 30+ years (like an extensive drainage system, not just a patch on a cracked walkway; new efficient circulated hot water heating, not just a cheap replacement boiler).
Unlike flippers, who just blither about "curb appeal" and do the bare minimum before running away, so it fails all over again in under 5 years.
Tax the flippers.
Speculation Means You Don't Live In A Cave
By John Costello
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:40pm
I made enough money off selling my first house (which my wife and I saved and scratched years to put a down payment for) that I actually got the house I wanted.
North Korea and certain states in India have communist governments. Please avail yourself of all that Logan Airport has to offer to get yourself there if you believe that speculation is bad. Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen - Karl Marx, if that thing is for you.
Hate to say it, Greed Is Good. It means I have good plumbing, a roof over my head, a decent kitchen and I don't have to do Co-Housing with somebody who has parents that are letting them do the "socialism" thing for a few years until they inherit the beach house.
In India (at least until a
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:49pm
In India (at least until a few years ago) there was a strong legal doctrine against "idle property". Basically if you occupied a piece of land or housing for longer than a year, you'd gain squatter rights. Property rights essentially transfer from the owner to you. If you want to rent out your house, you have to move back in after a year, otherwise you forfeit it.
To the American mind this sounds insane. But if you really think about it, squatter right is less insane than the "deed" system, where an old piece of paper dictates what land belongs to whom.
India?
By John Costello
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:10pm
That's nice.
On the upside there is far less cholera and arsenic filled water in my neighborhood owing to greed, but you know Squatters Rights! Power to the People.
You're right! Squatter
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:40am
You're right! Squatter Rights causes cholera!!
You're right, of course.
By Milwaukee Mike
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:11pm
You're right, of course. There's no middle path between unregulated, rapacious capitalism and communism. I mean, If you don't like the Arctic circle, it's only natural that you should move to the Sahara Desert. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Unregulated?
By John Costello
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:13pm
Zoning, Building Permits, NIMBYism, Too Much Traffic!, Environmental Regulations, Development Impact Fees.
You have obviously never built anything except with Legos.
Unregulated me arse.
Nice try. I am arguing for
By Milwaukee Mike
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:18pm
Nice try. I am arguing for reasonable regulations, not suggesting that the current environment for would-be builders is totally unregulated.
I hope you're not in the construction business yourself because that straw man you just put together ought to be condemned.
I made enough money off
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:43pm
It sounds like this would be targeted at foreign flippers, not owner-occupants who buy a fixer upper and put in sweat labor on their own property.
Plumbing and roofs are great.
By Kinopio
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:40pm
Plumbing and roofs are great. So are schools, fire departments, etc that are paid for by taxes such as the one suggested in this article.
Taxes
By John Costello
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 5:44pm
Yes, rising property prices, lead by speculation, causes increased property values, which in turn means more property taxes to pay for things like bike lanes. Those taxes now pay for the great BFD and BPD along with mediocre schools.
A cap on speculation means longer holding time for investors, meaning lower return, meaning lower house prices, meaning less revenue for government, which means more cars because the city can't afford to create bike lanes and less money for police, fire, and schools.
Vermont has a type of period holding tax to decrease speculation. It is also a place of good beer and beautiful vistas. It is also a place that I like to visit but would not want to live since the guv'rmint is telling me what I can and cannot do with my money more than other states. It is also a place that has a ridiculous amount of rural poverty. You can't eat a view when you can't make a living owing to too much, and not just the right amount of regulation.
A cap on speculation means
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 10:50am
You're right! Less housing speculation will bankrupt the city!!
Um, property taxes have not
By anon
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 5:32pm
Um, property taxes have not been assessed at the value paid for the properties in Boston.
nope......
Notice all the "I" in your
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 6:38am
Notice all the "I" in your statement? Why would we make laws that affect everybody based around your personal needs?
Not *all* speculation is bad.
By JI
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 12:06pm
Not *all* speculation is bad. Speculation at the expense of residents is bad. Flipping properties, jacking up the price, and having zero investment in the neighborhood is bad. I know families, seniors, low-income folks who are being pushed out to neighborhoods that they don't know and struggle to get around in because profit is the ONLY thing developers and flippers care about. That destroys neighborhoods.
We have seen housing do up
By anon
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 5:22pm
We have seen housing do up 100% in less than 4 years, a three decker that was 475K in 2014 is now easily 1m in some neighborhoods, wherenot much else has changed. Well maybe the tenants have been evicted and moved to brocton or Lynn.... how is this good?
Flippers ad value
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:48pm
They are often local people with seasonal construction jobs who renovate and sell homes as their winter work income.
Most are not wealthy - they team up with other relatives in the trades and buy a junked out barely habitable place and turn it into something livable by working during their slow time.
I don't think you know what you are talking about here.
Oh what a blessing!
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:59pm
Thank all the gods and saints that we have local people (and their unemployed relatives) willing to spend their winters installing slightly dented vanities, granite remnants, and stainless appliances then making all this available to us lowly peons for only an additional 20%.
Surely we mere mortals couldn't possibly stumble into Home Depot and buy the cheapest appliances on the floor ourselves. Surely we couldn't have imagined pointless recessed lights in weird places, enclosed fixtures that cause LED bulbs to overhead, and the obligatory breakfast bar sticking out into the living room. Thank them all so much for deciding to shit "subway tile" all over the place, because nothing makes a home cozier than surfaces from mass transit.
Princes among men and women. May they all live to be 1000 years old. We are fortunate to bask in their presence in our neighborhoods. My space saver is theirs.
You can do any and all of that
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:50pm
Just buy the house first. Do your own permits. Do your own work.
Go for it. It is called sweat equity.
Are you living under a rock?
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 6:45am
Are you living under a rock? How many years has it been since an average resident could buy a house in our city? Are you suggesting we walk up to the bank with our median income and say "I know I'm not qualified for the mortgage but I have sweat equity!"
We did it
By Jason
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 4:26pm
Bought the first house in late 2008 when the market was crashing all around us and everyone told us we were nuts. Used an FHA low down rehab loan and got the place livable, then continued to slowly sink more into it as we could. We were underwater in the place until maybe 2014. With the recent boom, we were able to cash out refinance and turn that one into a rental. We rolled the sweat equity we'd gained into another, larger fixer upper right around the corner. As before, we got a rehab loan but this time it was at 20% down and no FHA help. As before, we did what we could with the loan and we'll spend the next few years doing the remaining projects as we have time and available cash.
As someone who's done it twice and who watches the market pretty closely, I'd say that while the recent boom has certainly made things more competitive, it's still possible to buy a fixer upper if you're willing to live outside of the prime locations. It was easier up until about 3 years ago. But like all bubbles, this one will eventually end, likely in about 2 years and hopefully less dramatically than the last one.
Agreed. Real estate is
By anon
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 9:00am
Agreed. Real estate is cyclical. Right now we are at or near the top of the market. This bubble will burst, the shift will turn the market into a buyers market again and the process will start over. Rinse, repeat...
(SLOW CLAP)
By Marco
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:53pm
this is poetry
I'm sorry that you don't understand sweat equity
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 6:57pm
There is nothing stopping you from doing any/all those things - or the things that you want like damaged shag rug and nicotine stained paneling - to the fixer upper of your choice.
So very sad that you are prevented from bidding on trashy houses and using sweat equity to make them your own. That you are relegated to bitching about the people who do to make a living.
Speaking of not understanding...
By Wiffleball
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 7:54pm
Unless it's already been bought by a housing speculator. Or unless comparable property has been made unaffordable because of housing speculators.
What part of "making it your own" are these people doing if all they're gonna do it sell it as soon as they can? Meanwhile, they're bidding against people who would use sweat equity for a place to live in.
Sorry, Swirly, I usually agree with you on things, but not on this time. House flippers are parasites.
'Parasites' Is A Pretty Harsh Word Here
By Oscar Worthy
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 8:42pm
I think 'bloodsuckers' would be a little more diplomatic term for these guys.
You're all missing the point
By Stevil
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 9:33pm
Including the councilor.
You want to fix this? Fix Boston's zoning.
Why do we complain about affirdable housing when vast swaths of the city are occupied by one story retail and single family houses. Rezone to allow double the densityy and the buulders will come (but prices will come down whivh is why they won't do it).
Like New York City's prices
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 6:47am
Like New York City's prices went down? How does that make the prices go down? Are you going to disallow new people from moving into Boston?
Ummm
By Stevil
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 11:45am
If you read the papers there are numerous reporrs that new York s prices are declining. Overbuilt, especially high end. As they come down it starts to pulll everything else down.
New York is a prime example
By eherot
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 12:09pm
New York is a prime example of what happens if you refuse to re-zone short neighborhoods (like Queens or Greenwich Village) into taller ones: It becomes astronomically expensive. Tokyo (where people are truly allowed to build any height and density that they want), is a much better example.
I think you are not paying attention
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 9:23am
The point: BUY IT YOURSELF AND FIX IT UP if you want cheap housing.
Nobody is stopping you.
Don't bitch about the people who BUY IT THEMSELVES and FIX IT UP just because they SELL IT.
There aren't cheap houses anymore...
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:17pm
Plenty is stopping people. People making FAR above the median wage here can no longer afford to buy even the worst fixer uppers available on the market.
Why?
They can't afford them because speculators as a whole have driven up market values and flippers can purchase any fixer upper with cash as opposed to the rest of us who are relying on trying to get a mortgage.
What happens when a flipper can continue to buy every fixer upper with cash? More centralization of wealth and the ability to buy even MORE fixer uppers while the rest of us regular folks watch prices increase even HIGHER with no ability to join in to develop that "sweat equity" you speak of.
It is increasingly difficult
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 5:16pm
It is increasingly difficult for normal people to compete against speculators who can make an upfront cash offer.
You are telling people that the solution is to be born rich. Helpful!
Sounds like
By Marco
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:20am
you either make SO much money that spending $150-250k IN CASH to buy a distressed property is no big deal to you, or you actually have no idea what it entails to buy such a property.
Your average blue collar worker can not afford, nor get a loan, to buy a burned out husk of a house in the Boston area. Nor would they have the time, without quitting their job, to do all the work required to make such a property livable, all while paying rent to live somewhere else in the meantime, and purchasing the materials and paying subcontractors for work they couldn't perform.
No these types of building refurbishments are almost exclusively carried out by flippers or developers. Folks with CAPITAL. I'm not knocking it, they are building housing after all, I just would like an invite to the high society fantasy world you live in where a janitor can just buy a boarded up building in cash and spend 6 months to a year fixing it up to live in.
Who has the capital?
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 11:31am
It isn't who you think. It is often trades people who work together - form a small business, pool their money, work on it together, and make a profit.
Show some data that it is multinational corporations doing this flipping. I sincerely doubt it. My experience is that it is groups of tradespeople - often extended families - who are taking the risks and doing the work.
In other words - BLUE COLLAR PEOPLE
I live in one of those properties
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 11:33am
My landlord was a 20 year old plumber when he bought it. Not to live in - to rent so he could afford to live there one day. He hit up relatives for the capital and put them on the deed. Then he worked on it in his off hours.
I don't think that you know any trades people.
Ah, be born in a family with
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 5:24pm
Ah, be born in a family with capital to loan. The Mitt Romney business model. Very helpful.
Or maybe he had saved enough
By anon
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 9:03am
Or maybe he had saved enough for a down payment, some rehab finances or a loan, put in some sweat equity and is waiting for about 10 years when the place will start to turn a profit.
Ah to be willing to compromise
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 6:59pm
I know some young tradespeople who are doing the same thing. Only they aren't getting money from their parents, they are living with their parents while they save for a fixer upper, then getting a mortgage to buy it and fix it up. Then moving in with housemates to help carry the mortgage.
They don't expect to buy in high cost neighborhoods. Starting in Everett or Malden or Chelsea. Sorry, but most people don't get what they want in terms of space and in terms of location and never have when it comes to buying a first home and building equity.
II wanted to live in Cambridge, but I moved to Medford because I couldn't even afford Arlington anymore. Oh horrors - I had to compromise!
Rehab loans
By Jason
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 4:36pm
They're a real thing. I've used them twice now. First time was an FHA loan with 3% down. Second time was a conventional mortgage with 20% down of the total price of purchase and repairs.
I know lots of people who do 1-4 family residential real estate rehabs and rentals. None of them are hugely wealthy. Residential real estate is a pain in the butt. Those who are lucky (or good) enough to make significant money quickly move into larger properties where the rewards are bigger and the people who you deal with aren't small time players or nervous homeowners.
Control of free people
By Fresh T.
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 5:54pm
Fees on property flipping is literally punishment for investing and improving a property. Owners who sell/ flip a property already pay the state of Massachusetts a Stamp Tax when they sell and Capital gains taxes on any profits. Ms Edwards wants to tell owner-occupants who can or can't live in their homes. I want to know her proposed penalty for those who don't comply, because in political circles there has been a lot of political rhetoric about the threat of Fascists and Authoritarians controlling people's lives. Often, the most heavy-handed attempts to control free people come from Lydia Edwards' end of the political spectrum.
Team up and buy? Most people
By anon
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 5:30pm
Team up and buy? Most people in the trades do not have 500k cash on hand to beat out an LLC or overseas money to secure a property to renovate. I do not think you know what you are talking about.
Familiarize yourself with a
By dm12
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:10pm
Familiarize yourself with a term called liquidity.
Increasing liquidity does indeed create wealth.
It's hard to reduce risk without speculators
By Bob Leponge
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 5:23pm
Let's say I know I"m going to need 10,000 gallons of diesel next October to run the delivery trucks I operate. The price I charge for delivery is already fixed. So if the price of diesel goes up, I'm screwed; if the price of diesel goes down, I get a windfall.
But I'm in the business of running trucks, not of gambling in the commodities markets. So I'd like to remove that particular uncertainty from the equation. So I buy a forward contract, paying a small premium which guarantees me 10,000 gallons of diesel in October at a known price.
Now who would sell me such a contract? Someone who, unlike me, *is* in the business of speculating in the commodities markets. He or she takes on the risks of a price increase and the rewards of a price decrease. In other words, a speculator.
Without speculators in the market, I wouldn't be able get myself *out* of the business of gambling on oil prices.
House flipping in East Boston
By Bobl
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 10:39pm
House flipping in East Boston was the rage 5 years ago, today it’s permanent buyers buying homes fixing them up and living in them, or renting them.
What planet
By ChrisInEastie
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 10:03am
are you living on? Take a walk down Sumner, Everett, Lamson, or Maverick between Lamson and Jeffries.
Bravo, Councilwoman Edwards
By ChrisInEastie
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:42pm
This is the type of leadership the city needs right now, and I'm thrilled to see someone following through on their campaign promises out of the gate. Not to mention calling it like they see it–many of us realized years ago that the fauxury housing boom may help improve neighborhoods in the visual sense, but often at the expense of their actual communities.
This is just the start of what will undoubtedly be a long uphill battle, here's hoping we actually see some change.
So
By bosguy22
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:52pm
You think the government should be in the business of developing housing?
They Are
By John Costello
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:04pm
They have very nicely built, crime free developments with plenty of parking with names like Old Colony, Old Harbor, Lenox Street, Cathedral (excellent access to The Buttery!), Archdale, and Franklin Field. That's not even the full list!
Nope
By ChrisInEastie
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 6:15pm
Never said, or even insinuated that. But I do think the government should address what many Bostonians feel to be a serious issue.
By targeting commercial home-sharing and foreign speculation in particular, you’re freeing up more units for actual residents, while also bringing housing costs down. And maybe this would lead to a decrease in developers artificially inflating surrounding property values and taxes, while making it possible for individuals to buy homes in the city.
Singapore
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:24pm
Check out the successful nation of Singapore...it works wonders there. I'm not going to claim that their situation is analogous, however, the idea isn't ridiculous.
She's right and those are
By Joe P
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 2:59pm
She's right and those are both overdue policies. Kudos to the new councilor. But she also needs to support robust building as well at all levels to keep the supply growing. They all need to happen.
I may be wrong, but aren't
By anon
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:14pm
I may be wrong, but aren't flippers usually buying extremely distressed properties? I understand the desire to not have the few remaining cheap houses bought up and turned into expensive houses, but at the same time, seeing the kind of properties that have "CONTRACTOR SPECIAL" on redfin, they're not... livable places. If you're a resident of boston who's too poor to pay for affordable housing, you're likely too poor (and busy, working 3 part time jobs, taking care of elderly parents, whatever) to rehab some condemned shack with foundation problems that's been sitting empty for three years, because nobody else wants to buy it:
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Boston/151-Hebron-St-021...
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Boston/427-Walnut-Ave-02...
I'm just not imagining this is the kind of affordable housing we should really be saving for the working poor??
Alas, You're Wrong
By Oscar Worthy
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 8:52pm
Most house flippers are buying decent - albeit outdated - properties, evicting long-standing tenants, doing the aforementioned Home Depot stainless/granite 'rehab', and then throwing the empty unit back onto the market ASAP for a 20-30% ROI. So yeah, they got rid of the 1980s appliances and that dreadful kitchen that actually had 4 walls. And maybe replaced that old baby blue vinyl siding with new charcoal grey vinyl siding . . And helped clear out the community in the process.
Not quite
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:22am
It's a lot more difficult than you make it sound. And even distressed properties are going for big money. The profit margins are slim. Try looking at the prices of distressed properties. They're out of the affordable range as is. Boston is not an affordable city. The housing market is very competitive. It's a sellers market right now, even for distressed properties. Which would you prefer in your neighborhood, a distressed property or a rehabbed property?
the distressed properties are so expensive...
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 1:28pm
The distressed properties are so expensive because of speculation of flippers purchasing them. If people didn't see that there was a sweet cash deal from a flipper coming down the road, the price on these might decrease a bit. Then these houses could be purchased and renovated by middle class owner-occupiers rather than flippers who strip the soul out of these homes.
They are plenty of people making real, middle class salaries who can't afford renovated $700k triple decker floors in Dorchester but could afford the $200k for a unit needing serious renovation if the prices weren't so inflated by speculators.
Developers are not flipping
By anon
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 10:42am
Developers are not flipping individual condo floors and the sellers of triple deckers to developers typically can't sell them as condos. Do you have any idea how much it costs just to paper convert a triple decker to condos? Most of the sellers are older and are ready to move on to retirement and can't afford to $10k-$15k just to convert, upgrade the smoke detectors and deal with home inspection issues that may come up when selling each unit piecemeal.
Very few renovated condos in multi-families are selling for $700k+ Most are in the $450-$650k range with $650k being in the prime areas of Polish Triangle, Jones Hill and Savin HIll and being high-end renovations. Nearly all of the units selling for $700k+ are brand new construction where a developer took vacant land and commercial buildings and tore them down and added housing units to the neighborhood vs. displacing tenants in a triple decker. Right now there are several brand new renovated units for less than $500k all over Dorchester either on the market or about to come on the market, most of them in walking distance to the Redline too!
Have you priced a mortgage on
By anon
Sat, 01/27/2018 - 6:02pm
Have you priced a mortgage on that? 500k with taxes, insurance and condo fees can be close to 2700.00+ a month. This is a condo, in a three decker, no FHA ? The entire building could be had for 500k in 2014. Add the cost of living. You want a car, you want a decent school for your child, how about no gunplay or drug dealing on your block? You cannot have that and afford this. This is the result of speculation. this is sustainable?
Half of Bostonians make 35k a year, where are they supposed to live? Oh the LLC have bought up multi's and use them as " cash cows". High rent creates high subsidies. One can rent that newly renovated condo to a mom on a voucher, until you flip it for another 100k, creating another cycle of homelessness for her children. Who needs stable communities and owner investement?
Kudos to the Councilor first real move I have ever seen by City Councilors.
Plus
By Stevil
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 9:38pm
The distressed properties at fire sale pruces are mostly gone. I know severalnpeople in different ends of this biz and it's gotten very hard to make money. Here and there, yes, but not like 6-8 years ago.
"I do not believe we can build our way out this problem"
By Will LaTulippe
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:33pm
I hope this woman is not nearly as stupid as this comment indicates. If I owned 10 houses, at some point, I would start selling the ones I don't need, because I need to make back the money I spent building them.
Now, when the cost of acquiring the land under them is taxed at insanely high rates, what, pray tell, would you think happens to the cost of paying rent to live in the subsequently built domicile?
There are plenty of people
By Kinopio
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:45pm
There are plenty of people letting property sit idle for various reasons. These are very rich people and they should be taxed. They profit on Boston being a great and desirable city. Boston is a great and desirable city because of the people who live here and pay taxes, not from speculators and trust fund brats.
The are taxed
By bosguy22
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 4:54pm
They pay property tax on said "unused property". Where is all this property the "very rich" own and are letting sit idle?
Do you know why they let that
By anon
Fri, 01/26/2018 - 10:24am
Do you know why they let that property sit? Because it is so difficult to get zoning variances, capital and a market that will support the prices they need to sell at to make a profit all at the same time. Developers don't want to sit on property at all. But for most, it is a long play they need to make in order to not lose their shirt in this city with the rampant NIMBYism that blocks someone from even taking a huge 7000 sq ft lot and putting three units on it. Then if your lucky enough to have land in a NDOD, you have to get "design review" from the neighbors and BPDA. I invite you to actually look at the process and tell me that developers are making money risk free.
There's a city tax break if
By anon
Thu, 01/25/2018 - 8:18am
There's a city tax break if you live in the unit you own. There's precedent for the city using tiered property tax to encourage behavior (people living and owning in units, encouraging investment in neighborhoods) Can we put a tax specifically on vacant property? Or, if not, what if we raised the overall tax rate, but kept the owner-occupant abatement, and also added a renter-occupied abatement, so landlords dollar costs don't move either?
Obviously you are right.
By Candy
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 8:16pm
Obviously you are right. Higher taxes will simply be passed onto the renters in the form of higher rents. This is a problem all major cities face and no one has come up with a good solution. The best we can do is improve public transportation so that those pushed out can get back in to work.
Councilor Lydia Edwards
By Steve Brady
Wed, 01/24/2018 - 3:40pm
Councilor Lydia Edwards (Charlestown, East Boston, North End) today proposed taxes on property speculation as a way to keep Boston from becoming another Manhattan.
Was the Manhattan reference from her, or did you add that, Adam?
Pages
Add comment