That's not true, not if your regulations are sufficiently strict.

For instance, if you tax second homes (or third homes, or homes not occupied at least 8 months out of the year, or whatever specific condition you want to use) at 100% of the value per year, you're going to end the purchase of empty real estate to park money, without directly affecting ordinary middle-class people who just want a place to live.

Unfortunately, such a measure would be politically untenable—frankly, even in the 2024 environment, and exponentially moreso now.

> For instance, if you tax second homes (or third homes, or homes not occupied at least 8 months out of the year, or whatever specific condition you want to use) at 100% of the value per year

Many locales already charge much higher yearly property taxes on homes not owner occupied [1]. Where I used to live my property taxes were ~2k/year or closer to 10k/year if not owner-occupied. Of course most of that increase will just end up passed on to renters.

[1] Look up 'homestead exemptions'.

Well, I think there are two slightly different things we're talking about here:

1) Homestead exemptions, where the extra tax is on properties that are not owner-occupied

2) Taxing vacancy, where the extra tax is on properties that are unoccupied more than a certain amount of the year. (This is the one I was describing.)

Both are worth considering; both have their own pros and cons.

You can create LLCs that own the homes. You can rent the home to a friend one night a year so it's an actual business.

The ways to get around something like that are fractal and lead to dumb wasteful whack-a-mole legislation.

So to actually fix the problem, you just build more housing.