--201.140.xxx.xx

Yes let them sit empty. Agree. Instead of risking damage and not getting paid. --172.58.xxx.xxx

There was an attorney who combated this in a municipality by listing his vacancies for sale. At an extremely high price, that is. His claim (and twist in the law I’m sure) was that simply showing it listed for sale while vacant showed the property in an “active use” status. Effectively disarming another dumb city council rule. Where there’s a law, there’s a way around it, right? --174.198.xx.xxx

Idiots! --75.7.xx.xx

CA is becoming more like Venezuela. In Venezuela, homeowners won't rent out their homes because it is impossible to collect rent or to evict i.e. a moratorium. The homeowner is left with the repair bills and taxes, like California. So in Caracas, the city is filled with empty houses where the owners have fled to Florida, and they won't rent them out. Like I told one guy during the moratorium who was asking me about a vacant rental house - if I can't evict, I won't rent it. You are better off leaving it vacant, like they do in Venezuela. At least you can sell it vacant to a buyer instead of a potentially a lifelong tenant for one month's rent to move in. --201.140.xxx.xx

Are those LLs still taking tax benefits of their rentals when not occupied? They should be taxed for this behavior. --72.49.xxx.xxx

Tax benefits are irrelevant. Communism is never the answer JAC. Honk honk --174.198.xx.xxx

--75.7.xx.xx

Its not communism. You are not entitled to use tax breaks for an investment if that investment is not in service. Follow the rules cupcake. --72.49.xxx.xxx

I follow the rules that benefit me. Like a good investor. Imagine though, being an investor wanting more taxes. Or even worse, using taxes as a weapon or punishment. Brain melt. --174.198.xx.xxx

I don’t know if you have noticed yet JAC or just willingly turn a blind eye, but the more the leftard politicians try to fix things, the more they F them up! --174.198.xx.xxx

I know this is difficult for you but you don't get to claim investor status when you are not. CA knows the game and is tightening this rule. Stay classy cupcake. --72.49.xxx.xxx

Hence the mass exodus from Cali. Come hang with me for a week. I’ll have you normal in no time. Honk honk. PS: no REAL for-profit investor is in favor of more taxes. --174.198.xx.xxx

There is an area in N E Ohio with this tax, created an exodus of owners while housing went 4 sale. --76.190.xxx.xxx

I'm sure there are plenty of LLs that are willing to follow the rules and if not that adds to the SFU stock which boosts still tax revenue. The munis don't lose taxes, the tax payer doesn't socialize the cheats and the cheats move on. Win/Win/Win. --72.49.xxx.xxx

Let’s put this out to vote, JAC. Start a thread and ask the board when they are in favor of higher taxes and why? Let’s see what happens. --174.198.xx.xxx

As property investors and or landlords only. Not homeowners --174.198.xx.xxx

You are REAL classy. --24.101.xxx.xxx

Here’s A real life situation I can throw out to the board. I have a unit that is just Wrapping up now. It’s been vacant for five or six months during the remodel. Just because I haven’t had time to get to it. My delay in getting the property remodeled and an extended vacancy it’s no one’s business but my own. Not the taxing bodies, not the municipalities and certainly not the JAC’s of the world. Now I will be posting it for rent and I could have it rented in a week or a very easily could sit for two or three months screening out all the deadbeats. So, should I be taxed for this as punishment? When it’s nobody’s business of my own? --174.198.xx.xxx

TIS BETTER TO HAVE NO TENANT THAN A BAD TENANT. I left one empty for 3 months until a great tenant applied. The tenant stayed 8 years, never late and left the property in move in condition. --99.23.xxx.x

Its no ones business until you cheat on your taxes then its everyone's business. Still pretty simple for your simple mind. Don't claim an active investment tax deduction if you don't have an active investment. Stay classy tax cheats. --72.49.xxx.xxx

--24.152.xxx.xx

JAC our resident nation wrecking communist from that certain tribe is at it again --107.77.xxx.xx

Don't be angry when you get checked. Take it like a man. --107.77.xxx.xx

Don’t disagree with JAC, you’ll be a terrorist, a mass murderer, a tax cheat, a neck beard, member of the mayonnaise brigade. Did I miss anything? This is why posters need to be rated. There is no way you are a serious poster. Having a vacancy does not make you a tax cheat. Clown nose goes honk. Just remember, when they pass their fancy little law to where not renting to the homeless while having extended vacancies is a tax penalty, it’s also going to affect you when you have extended vacancies for whatever other reason. It will be an umbrella law. --174.198.xx.xx

Only LANDLORDS couldn't evict people for not paying their bills. Power, cable, phone: all could shut off their services. You couldn't buy gas without money. You couldn't buy groceries without money. You couldn't buy a car. But you COULD snag free housing, even if you didn't need it. It remains one of the single biggest jaw-droppers of government over-reach I've ever seen. --50.82.xxx.xxx

I would also add that LLs were expected to work for free. We couldn't collect/evict for non-payment, yet we were still expected to provide repairs/maintainence on our properties. --173.31.xxx.xxx

The entire response was an overreach. Not just what you disagree with. --24.152.xxx.xx

NE you are up to 3 posts for everyone of mine. Keep up the good work pookie. --72.49.xxx.xxx

Being vacant it’s not out of service. Thumbs down to your posts JAC. You’re bad info for newbie investors who do not know any better. --24.152.xxx.xx

And extended vacancy due to tight screening isnt out of service either. The carrying costs are still deductible in the interim. Documented applications received an application fees received in that time or good enough to show activity on the property. --174.240.xxx.xx

And response number three for your ego, butter cup. Truck horns and clown noses go Honk honk. --174.240.xxx.xx

The owner tried to evict a tenant that was using a residential unit for commercial use. The courts said they owner could make the tenant leave if the owner paid the tenant a "kings ransom", Like $100,000. --47.155.xx.xxx

JAC, is there any tax that you disagree with? --72.231.xxx.xxx

We should pay higher taxes on that? Why? --50.82.xxx.xxx

i briefly considered a fourplex in SF. my immersion in tenant rights there was shocking. once you let them in you can't hardly get them out and if you can you pay sometimes tens of thousands of dollars in "relocation". san fran has had a "vacant unit" surplus for years...some estimate as many as 14,000 units that owners have decided to forego rent on due to the INSANE tenant rights laws. they also have rent control. --75.80.xx.xx

NE--In Philly owners of vacant properties used a similar strategy to what you describe to fight attempts to take their properties under the state's blight law. The property being "for sale" exempted it from the law. Owners only had to advertise it in some manner. They would put up some fliers on poles asking a ridiculous price, take pictures, and beat the attempt to take control. The state altered the law to require that the property be put in the MLS and be listed for a reasonable price. --73.141.xxx.xxx

So who determines what a reasonable price is? --24.152.xxx.xx