__ __ _ _____ _ _ _
| \/ | ___| |_ __ _| ___(_) | |_ ___ _ __
| |\/| |/ _ \ __/ _` | |_ | | | __/ _ \ '__|
| | | | __/ || (_| | _| | | | || __/ |
|_| |_|\___|\__\__,_|_| |_|_|\__\___|_|
community weblog
Mamdani introduces pied à terre tax
YouTube link Protect this man at all costs
posted by St. Peepsburg on Apr 15, 2026 at 3:50 PM
---------------------------
Exciting, but a bit disingenuous.
I doubt the goal of the tax is to generate substantial revenue, because many absent owners will simply sell to people who will live at the property. Good riddance, I say.
In the spirit of using taxation as a libertarian-friendly alternative to prohibitions, the real goals I suspect are to discourage (a) the use of bulk real estate as an investment vehicle, and (b) rental of high end properties to wealthy diaspora with only a casual connection to NYC. Both of these problems contribute to inner city economic and social rot and this will help remedy that on top of any money it brings in.
posted by CynicalKnight at 4:37 PM
---------------------------
Not the biggest fan of "we're gonna tax this person specifically" marketing since it's borderline writ of attainder. And usually these "tax the 0.1 percent" schemes end up with peanuts because the base is so small. But as they say, "Americans always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all other options." A symbolic step in the right direction.
the use of bulk real estate as an investment vehicle
In theory, the rule is "if you want less of something, tax it." Thats how we got the REIT income tax treatment and the federal mortgage deduction. And lo and behold we have growing suburbs around decaying urban cores. It's probably long past time we ended the mortgage interest deduction (and REIT treatment as well) and let market forces determine the proper housing mix, but as a long time renter I obviously have a vested interest in this.
posted by pwnguin at 5:00 PM
---------------------------
I feel an uncanny desire to vote for this man.
posted by SPrintF at 5:13 PM
---------------------------
I find this man and this tax very genuine and quite frankly very refreshing.
500 million dollars. Fabulous! I hope that is understated.
If this makes libertarians uncomfortable, so be it.
We just need Government that prioritizes the people. If the politicians are doing that, I'll grade on a curve. We need to get from 0 to something and then we can start optimizing. There are so many bad ideas baked into our economy and government and we still limp along. I don't see any of this adding to that in any substantial way.
posted by garbhoch at 5:17 PM
---------------------------
I would be interested to know how this will get around the fact that many of those units are likely held by corporations rather than individuals.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:21 PM
---------------------------
Corporations are people, my friend! (/s)
posted by kaibutsu at 5:23 PM
---------------------------
I'm not sure why there is such a "meh" response. This is delightful!
First of all, the guy ran on taxing the rich to fund better services. And he's doing it. Gleefully and with style. What's not to love?
In other parts of the world, taxing empty homes is a common strategy, and it seems to work. In Vancouver, for example, while prices are still high, it's been proven that after our empty home and speculation taxes, lots of homes came back on the market, became rentals again, the city raised millions and runaway speculation on real estate has crawled to a stop (based on that as well as other policies, such as a tax on real estate flipping and - to be fair - rising rates and economic woes created by he-who-shall-not-be-named).
As in New York, the announcement was met with teeth-gnashing predictions that the rich "job creators" will leave, resulting in an empty, bankrupt city. But there was no exodus. And the city still stands.
Frankly, if you think $238m for a part time pied-a-terre is within your means, then good for you: You can easily afford to chip in a few pennies for better sanitation, health care, safety and child care. Every little helps.
I don't live in NYC anymore (the last time was when the city was a bankrupt hellhole a la "The Warriors", which paradoxically coincided with great music, theater, artworks, etc), but - as they say - "I approve this message"!
And if I still lived there, I would be proud to have Mamdani as my mayor.
posted by Bigbootay. Tay! Tay! Blam! Aargh... at 5:23 PM
---------------------------
Landlords, come out to pl-AYEEE-EEE!!!
(Growing up in suburban Kansas City. this is how I imagined NYC for many years...)
posted by Windopaene at 5:37 PM
---------------------------
Excellent! He can use that money to reverse this decision
Mayor's decision to appeal court order that the city must expand its housing voucher program has angered advocates for the homeless
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 6:02 PM
---------------------------
many absent owners will simply sell to people who will live at the property
I mean, if the investors or pied-a-terrors sell to residents, their money is just as good at the bodega as anyone else's, so there's some sales tax and boost to the local economy; if they're employed they'll be paying income taxes; and while I don't know how to feel about inheritance taxes because I've never had to think about them, there's that for residents, too.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 6:09 PM
---------------------------
(Not necessarily $500m worth, but people living and paying normal taxes in the city seems like a neutral-to-positive thing to me.)
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 6:14 PM
---------------------------
> I'm not sure why there is such a "meh" response. This is delightful!
We're all concerned about our pied à terres.
posted by postcommunism at 6:16 PM
---------------------------
We're all concerned about our pied à terres.
I don't have a pied à terre but I did just overcook these pommes de terre in the Pied-uh-mont.
I guess we all have crosses to bear.
posted by Thivaia 2.0 at 6:24 PM
---------------------------
Tax the rich. The rich are too rich because they are not being taxed enough. If we can't have reasonable capital gains tax, etc, then by any means necessary. Kudos Mamdani.
posted by snofoam at 6:59 PM
---------------------------
interested to know how this will get around the fact that many of those units are likely held by corporations rather than individuals.
In BC you pay a similar tax if you don't have a registered occupant. If a corporation owns a residence that they let someone live at long term then you register that person. Otherwise pay the tax.
A truly astonishing amount of hay was made over some edge cases as speculators went maximum effort on PR fighting it but it seems to work ok.
posted by Mitheral at 7:01 PM
---------------------------
get em
let s tax the slumlords
posted by eustatic at 7:37 PM
---------------------------
Toronto has a vacant home tax. 3% of assesed value. .
You have declare by April 30 this year. .
posted by yyz at 7:42 PM
---------------------------
I had the impression this was something other than a straight up vacancy tax like the Canadian examples but perhaps I was reading to much into it.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:44 PM
---------------------------
We are trying this in our tiny city on the Oregon coast and whoa, the Facebook comments are ugly. And so many of these houses are just empty. Nobody's even using them as summer rentals; they're just sitting empty. The house next door to me has been empty for several years. But judging by Facebook, all the owners are being forced - forced, I tell you - to live in Portland or Seattle for now but eventually, they're going to retire to their empty houses as is their god given American right. And fuck our community in the meantime.
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:45 PM
---------------------------
OH MY HOLY SWEET FUCK YES
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:50 PM
---------------------------
I had the impression this was something other than a straight up vacancy tax like the Canadian examples but perhaps I was reading to much into it.
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering how "don't really live in the city" is defined, but in the end its kind of 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Years and years ago, there was a bit in a "Talk of the Town" at the front of the New Yorker where they were talking with a guy who was managing the amount of time spent in the actual City because if he spent 50% of his time outside (not sure of the number, but something like that) he wasn't an official "resident" and didn't have to pay NYC income tax. So if that guy's primary residence is somewhere else but he has a place in the city so he can spend three nights a week there without commuting or something, that's a little bit of a different thing than egregiously having a vacant place that you visit a couple times a year that's primarily a real estate investment. BUT! If that's a $5mil place in the city and he can afford an entire separate home somewhere else, then yes, by all means recoup what that guy is getting out of tax-wise by fucking around with how much time he actually spends in the city.
I'm glad the video said "enacted" instead of "proposed".
posted by LionIndex at 8:09 PM
---------------------------
So if that guy's primary residence is somewhere else but he has a place in the city so he can spend three nights a week there without commuting or something, that's a little bit of a different thing than egregiously having a vacant place that you visit a couple times a year that's primarily a real estate investment. BUT! If that's a $5mil place in the city and he can afford an entire separate home somewhere else, then yes, by all means recoup what that guy is getting out of tax-wise by fucking around with how much time he actually spends in the city.
Honestly, I quite frankly couldn't give less of a shit as to the distinction between "guy who owns a second place but only visits three times a year" and "guy who owns a second place so he can have an easier commute 3 days a week", because in both cases they are double-dipping, and a) taking an apartment away from someone who wants to live here full-time, and b) taking advantage of the benefits of having a residence here without contributing anything that would help make this the city they wanted to have residence in in the first place.
Like, seriously. Is it easier to live here 3 days a week because your subway commute is faster than the Long Island Railroad? Then pay taxes to fund the subway like the rest of us. You want a place here so you can crash after your once-a-week trip to the opera? Then pay taxes that would contribute to the arts grants that support the opera you want to see. You want a place here so you can pull all-nighters to launch the business you're trying to get off the ground because doing that from Poughkeepsie is too hard? Then pay taxes that will lighten the load on the people who'll be working in your business, asshole.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:23 PM
---------------------------
Well, yeah, that's what I said in the whole comment.
posted by LionIndex at 8:34 PM
---------------------------
Yes, I know what you said in the comment, my point was that you needn't have bothered entertaining it in the first place. The guy who has to ration his time so as to not trigger any residency-bells shouldn't have been worth any more of your attention save for a shrug and a "well, suck it up, buttercup".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:41 PM
---------------------------
You're assuming the worst intent possible and I don't know why.
I was more curious if the policy was written so that it does in fact capture that kind of guy. I feel like most of us are thinking of this kind of thing being the guy who's only in town a couple weekends, but in NYC people are dodging taxes in other ways. Like, I just want to know how broad the scope actually is.
posted by LionIndex at 8:56 PM
---------------------------
I think you're both agreeing loudly and there's a bit of a miscommunication. I think EC was mainly building on the same point.
posted by knobknosher at 9:15 PM
---------------------------
CynicalKnight: Exciting, but a bit disingenuous.
I doubt the goal of the tax is to generate substantial revenue, because many absent owners will simply sell to people who will live at the property.
NYC residents have to pay income tax to the city, so the city will end up collecting more taxes on previously uninhabited residences worth at least $5 million either way, whether via the pied à terre tax on properties uninhabited by city residents or via taxing the income of the new residents.
posted by syzygy at 11:07 PM
---------------------------
I never understand when this doesn't induce joy. If your comment is about the perceived feeling of somebody else then just don't say it? There is a point to this kind of tax and whatever the outcome is it's positive. So why worry if the feeling is genuine? Sure, let's tax the ultrarich but the tax has to feel genuine or it won't be ok? Do I get this?
posted by mayoarchitect at 2:21 AM
---------------------------
I doubt the goal of the tax is to generate substantial revenue, because many absent owners will simply sell to people who will live at the property.
....Who will then pay taxes on it, which generate revenue for the city.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:32 AM
---------------------------
So why worry if the feeling is genuine?
It's hard to compete with someone who's genuine.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:10 AM
---------------------------
I have no problem with this tax, but you can see how far we have fallen that a 2nd home that's rarely used used to be a middle class signifier.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:11 AM
---------------------------
Owning multiple homes has always been out of reach of the great majority of people. Homeownership in the US is still pretty close to the all-time high in 2008, and second homes make up less than 5% of housing stock. Given that before the 50s the share of Americans who owned any kind of home at all was about 20% lower, I find it doubtful that the rate of second home ownership was much higher then. Places like NYC and LA have much higher rates because they are attractive to the very wealthy, and this has been the case for a very long time.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 7:37 AM
---------------------------
I'm a huge Mamdani fan, but credit where it's due, this is a Hochul proposal.
posted by Ragged Richard at 7:37 AM
---------------------------
This is actually something that NYC leaders have been trying to bring about since 2014. If anything, Hochul finally agreed.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:47 AM
---------------------------
Owning multiple homes has always been out of reach of the great majority of people.
IMO, the shift in home ownership vs rental rates makes things like this hard to surmise - I just don't think the data exists, especially across the entire US as a whole. Also the home ownership rate is dependent upon the mix of owned vs rented, upon tax rules which have dramatically changed over time, and upon other things. For example, LA used to have a home ownership rate touching 60%, now it's down to 45%. Not because they destroyed a bunch of owned homes, they built rentals at a faster rate. Home ownership rates in Michigan touch 70%+.
Also, 'owning a 2nd home' is a variable thing - it can be 'used' by many family members while only one owns, which implies family ownership. Tax statistics vs occupation statistics can be very different.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:51 AM
---------------------------
For the record I am pro-vacant-home tax.
However this made me wonder: Then pay taxes to fund the subway like the rest of us. - are second homes exempt from property taxes in the US if they are unoccupied?
posted by warriorqueen at 8:07 AM
---------------------------
are second homes exempt from property taxes in the US if they are unoccupied?
Like many things in the US, it probably depends on where in the US you're talking about.
The founding fathers kind of chickened out on deciding some issues on the national level, and so they put a cop-out into the Constitution that "if there ain't anything in here about a given issue either way, that means individual states can make their own choices on that particular matter". A number of the national rights issues ever since have been more about adding that particular issue to the Constitution so that it is there and no longer "every state makes up its own mind". That was a large part of why the Dodd ruling was able to pass - it wasn't banning abortion outright, it was reiterating that "okay, Roe v. Wade was about privacy, not abortion specifically, and that means there's nothing technically and specifically about abortion any more and so that means it's up to each state to decide for itself."
So getting back to property tax on second homes: every state probably has its own policy on that matter, and each state also probably offers each city some further leeway. Which is probably part of why Governor Hochul and Mamdani focused specifically on New York City with this proposal, and not "New York State" overall.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:56 AM
---------------------------
warriorqueen: Don't forget that different jurisdictions in the US will have different rules. I'm not an expert, but quick googling suggests that every state imposes property taxes, and many states offer homestead (or similar) exemptions that lower the property tax burden on primary residences, which implies that it is common for states and other jurisdictions to charge property taxes on all residences, whether they are occupied or not.
Further quick googling suggests that NYC and NYS do charge property taxes on residences, whether or not anyone resides in them. This proposal isn't about property taxes, though.
posted by syzygy at 9:17 AM
---------------------------
I don't think that the subway is funded by property taxes. Although there are some tax abatements, credits, etc. generally yeah you're going to be paying tax on any property you own
posted by knobknosher at 9:29 AM
---------------------------
The MTA is almost 40% funded by fares and tolls, and 55% by a mix of taxes and subsidies that presumably ultimately also come from taxes. I don't see a traditional property tax mentioned though a real estate sales tax is.
posted by atoxyl at 9:56 AM
---------------------------
I don't think that the subway is funded by property taxes.
To be fair, I was coming up with "for-instance" kinds of things off the top of my head to speak in broad strokes about "if you want to buy a place here in NYC instead of staying in a hotel or doing some kind of funky sublet thing with a roommate, then maybe chip in to make this the kind of city you wanted to buy into". But it does look like a quarter of the property taxes collected are indeed allocated to "Transportation, Housing, Parks, etc." Overall, property taxes are distributed this way:
* 21% to support "Health and Welfare"
* 27% to "Education"
* 27% to municipal agencies like NYPD, FDNY, Sanitation, Corrections, etc.
* 25% to "Other agencies", which lumps transportation, housing, parks, and all other city agencies together
So it looks like while the subway isn't completely funded by property taxes, some if it is.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:01 AM
---------------------------
We have a version of this in greater Vancouver - speculation tax. Meaning don't park your money here and speculate that the land value will go up, historically a safe bet in Canada. The home has to be rented out to avoid the tax but retain ownership. A poster above said it improved Vancouver housing (I wasn't here when it was implemented) but I can tell you that a good number of people lie on the spec tax or get around it by hiring people to stop by once a week turn the lights on and make it look occupied (in the larger luxury homes).
What has actually moved people is that prices have come down. Now the idea that it's a safe bet is not so solid and people want to sell before it becomes worse. Just like any stock lol. I'm seeing a movement of sellers withdrawing from the market at least in our area - people who bought a house and never lived in it, which is good for buyers except the places definitely need repairs.
Anyways, I'm just adding my comment that I'm all aboard the tax itself, it just needs solid enforcement.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 10:04 AM
---------------------------
St. Peepsburg: The NYC law should be easier to enforce, because a residence will have to have a NYC taxpayer (paying NYC income taxes) listing it as their primary residence in order for the property owner to avoid the pied à terre tax.
Each individual can only register a single primary residence, as well.
posted by syzygy at 10:38 AM
---------------------------
"if you want to buy a place here in NYC instead of staying in a hotel or doing some kind of funky sublet thing with a roommate, then maybe chip in to make this the kind of city you wanted to buy into"
Yeah...I think my perspective on this is that in Canada anyway the way capital gains tax works (which is Federal; like the US provinces and municipalities do property tax, sorry for my big lumping in there) is that you pay much more significant taxes on the sale of a secondary/investment residence, so there is essentially a "second home tax" -- if you sell it, already.
And you have to pay property tax regardless so in a way if your taxes are going to community centres and libraries and things you don't use because you're not there, they're actually not undesirable from a municipal view that doesn't care about, you know, people being housed, but just the bottom line. (Although there are other costs that come with vacancy like losing local businesses paying taxes if the empty units are all in one neighbourhood, etc.)
Non-occupancy taxes, while also providing funds for things, aren't really about increasing taxation, at least here. In Toronto I'm relatively sure the overall idea is to make more units available for rent, so go ahead and invest but make sure people are actually living there or you'll have to pay a whack more tax.
This rolled out after short term rental bylaws because otherwise you'd just AirBnB your pied-à-terre some of the year to pay the taxes.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:54 AM
---------------------------
Thanks for the detail syzygy
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:57 AM
---------------------------
warriorqueen I've already emailed my MP and even the office of Mark Carney himself with my idea of a temporary tax holiday when selling a second (or third) property. I feel like that would squeeze out some inventory also
posted by St. Peepsburg at 11:59 AM
---------------------------
In my city, leadership seems to think that we can just monitor empty homes using the electronic water meters to check for usage, though of course this wouldn't flag the vacation rentals. It seems cleaner to use a primary residence declaration, but then you'd have privacy concerns around the database that would have to be created. If NY can figure this out, I hope it can be adopted in other places too.
posted by puffinaria at 8:24 PM
---------------------------
The database of primary residences already exists, as well as the database of all residences. I would be a little surprised if they couldn't already query those databases today to figure out which residences aren't registered as primary residences.
posted by syzygy at 5:13 AM
---------------------------