• Pipoca@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Remember that not every unit the census counts as vacant can have someone move into it. Their definition is honestly kinda weird. Some units are under construction or repair. Some are legally tied up in a divorce or estate sale. Some actually have people in them, such as non-dormitory student housing or housing for seasonal workers.

    According to the census, 14.5% of vacant units for rent are vacant for less than a month, and 20.6% are vacant for more than one month but less than 2. The median vacancy has been on the market for 3.7 months, and less than 20% of vacancies have been on the market for more than 1 year.

    Having a lot of units on the market for a month or two is a good thing; it means people can move to an area and find housing. You’re not going to house homeless people by sticking them into an apartment for a month or two between paying tenants.

    It’s also a good thing because low vacancy rates are associated with rents going up. And the rent being too damn high increases homelessness.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Do you think those houses would’ve gotten so run down if there was soneone living in them to see the need and do maintenance?

      Those houses are still in-flux instead of occupied. Do you even listen to yourself? Those houses are livable and not occupied… In factm houses in turnover is BAD because that means prices going up for renters and tax increases for owners.

      It is BAD to run housing like we do. Full stop. What I said is factuallu true abd you think those houses being in turmoil is better than being owned?!