Kyoto, Neyagawa, France, and Canada: The 'Other Tax' in Rural Areas Seen by Comparing Four Vacant House Taxes

Today, I would like to write about the following.

Is it appropriate to apply taxes like those in Kyoto City or Neyagawa City directly to depopulated areas or hilly and mountainous regions?
Aren't the vacant house problems in cities and rural areas different things?
That is what I want to discuss.

First, Kyoto City's tax is a 'tax to return to residential use'.

Let's look at Kyoto City's 'Non-Residential Property Utilization Promotion Tax'.
Since the name is long, to put it very simply, it is a system that says, 'We will impose an additional tax on houses where no one is living.'
Personally, I think the 'vacant house tax' introduced by Kyoto City is not so much a measure against the so-called vacant house problem, but rathera policy to counter foreign capital and speculative purposesas I see it.

The point is that it doesn't just target dangerous vacant houses.
It broadly covers houses not used as a primary residence, such as vacant houses, vacation homes, and second houses.
The term 'primary residence' here refers to the concept of whether the property is actually used as the center of life, rather than where the certificate of residence is registered.
Even without a certificate of residence, if someone is actually living there, it is not subject to the tax; conversely, even with a certificate of residence, if it is not actually used as a home, it could be subject to the tax.

Why was such a tax created?
The background involves circumstances unique to Kyoto City.
Strict landscape regulations make it difficult to build tall apartment buildings, and housing supply is hard to increase.

On the other hand, there are many vacant houses not circulating in the market, making it difficult for the younger generation to buy homes.
Therefore, the idea is, 'If a livable house is left vacant, we want you to move toward utilizing it.'

This is actually quite similar to the concept of the vacant house tax implemented in Vancouver, Canada.

Vancouver also faces serious housing price hikes and housing shortages, and they impose taxes with the goal of having vacant houses used as long-term rental housing.

In other words, Kyoto City's tax is a tax to 'return livable houses to a state where people live in them again'.

Note that Kyoto City's system also includes considerations for unavoidable circumstances such as facility admission, hospitalization, or inheritance.
Please keep this in the back of your mind, as it will be relevant later.

Neyagawa City's tax is a 'tax to return to the market'.

Next is Neyagawa City. The'Vacant House Circulation Promotion Tax'here has a slightly different aim.

It targets vacant houses that are not scheduled for rent or sale.
It is a system that wants houses returned to the housing market in the form of selling, renting, or living in them.
The mayor also explains that the purpose is not to secure tax revenue, but to encourage behavioral change among owners.
It is a message that they don't want to collect taxes, but rather want the owners to take action.

This is closer in concept to the French system.
France has a mechanism to tax houses that have remained vacant for a long time in areas where housing demand significantly exceeds supply, and the tax rate increases the longer the vacancy period lasts.
It is designed so that it is more profitable to circulate the property than to leave it vacant.

It is not that Neyagawa City is exactly the French model, but thephilosophy that 'it is more advantageous to return it to the market than to keep holding it as a vacant house' is sharedby both.

Let's line these up so far.
Kyoto City's tax isa policy to counter foreign capital and speculative purposesand is a 'tax to return livable houses to a state where people live in them'.

Neyagawa City's tax is a 'tax to return unused houses to the sales or rental market'.
The targets are slightly different, but both have the same premise at their root.

That premise is'that there is still demand for housing in this region'.

This is where the main topic begins. In rural areas, there are 'houses that cannot be sold even if you want to sell them'.

And this is the part I most wanted to write about.

Both Kyoto and Neyagawa have a fundamental demand for housing.
That is why the pressure of 'taxation if not utilized' effectively leads to action.

If you sell, there are buyers; if you rent, there are tenants. That is why there is a point in giving them a push.

But what about rural areas?

It is not that all owners of vacant houses in rural areas are neglecting to utilize them.
On the contrary, there are many houses that cannot be moved even if the owners want to.

Even if registered in a vacant house bank, there are no inquiries.
Even if you consult a real estate company, they say, 'We cannot handle this.'
Even if you say you will give it away for zero yen, there are no takers.
Even if you try to demolish it, the demolition costs exceed the value of the land.
The heirs live far away, and discussions do not progress.
Because the property is shared or inheritance registration has not been completed, no one can make a decision in the first place.
Rebuilding is not possible due to road access issues...

These kinds of houses really exist on the ground.

In other words, in rural areas, they are not vacant because they are not put on the market, but rather they remain vacant because they do not move even when put on the market.
This order is completely the opposite of cities.

What happens if you introduce a system of 'taxation if not sold or rented' to such regions?
It may end up just being a tax on people who cannot do what is asked, even if they want to sell.
Even if you give them a push, there is no answer at the end of the push.

Moreover, there is another pattern for vacant houses in rural areas.
In addition to 'unsellable houses,' there are 'houses that suddenly became vacant because the owner entered a facility.'
The moment a parent enters a nursing care facility, the family home becomes empty.
But the person is still healthy, and the owner remains the person themselves.
The children cannot just sell it on their own.
These houses are not even on the playing field of whether to sell or not.

What is interesting is that the overseas systems mentioned earlier are also designed not to tax these 'vacancies that are not the person's fault.'

In France, there is a concept of exempting taxation if the property is put up for rent or sale at market price but there are no takers, and the Vancouver system also has a mechanism for exemption if documents from a nursing care facility are provided.

In short, even taxes that are designed to give a push are properly avoiding 'circumstances where one cannot move even if one wants to.'

Even in the places where these originated, that is the case.
If so, isn't it unreasonable to bring an urban-style tax exactly as it is into rural areas where demand itself is scarce?
That is what I think.

The urban vacant house problem and the rural vacant house problem are different

Here, I will organize the differences between cities and rural areas.

What is happening in urban areas is the problem of'there are houses that can be lived in, but they do not come onto the market'.
Therefore, what we want to encourage owners to do is sell, rent, or live in them. The purpose of the tax is to increase the supply and circulation of housing, and the successful outcome is 'that the house is used as a residence again.'

On the other hand, what is happening in rural and mountainous areas is the problem that'demand for housing itself is low'.
What we really want to ask of owners here is not to sell or rent, but first to 'properly manage it so that it does not cause danger or nuisance.'
Even if a tax is imposed, its purpose is closer todisaster prevention, crime prevention, and environmental conservationrather than promoting circulation. The successful outcome is not 'that it is used as a residence again,' but 'that it is not left abandoned and safety is maintained.'

Even with the same'vacant house tax' name, the goals aimed for in cities and rural areas are completely different.
If you combine these, the people on the ground will likely suffer.

To summarize roughly in one word, the urban vacant house tax is a 'tax to return housing to the market.'
But what is really needed in rural areas is a 'tax to prevent nuisance to the community.'

This structure is actually also a map for business operators.

I have been discussing the system so far, but I believe this is a very important map for those involved in the business.

When a 'tax to return properties to the market' spreads in cities, it is basically the intermediaries of sales and rentals that benefit.
If owners, pushed by taxation, decide to 'sell or rent it out,' work is created there.
In a sense, the urban vacant house tax is also a tax that increases opportunities for real estate brokerage.It is also that.

However, the situation is different in rural areas.
Houses that cannot be sold, houses that cannot find tenants, and homes left empty due to facility admission.
Even if these are cornered by taxation, intermediaries cannot easily act.
Because there are no buyers or tenants.

So, what kind of work will increase in rural areas? I believe it is management.

If a house that cannot be sold remains as it is, work is needed to keep that house in a safe condition.
Regular inspections, mowing the grass, airing it out, clearing the mail, and checking for roof leaks or damage.
It is modest, but it is the decisive work that separates neglect from management.

Perhaps the leading role in vacant house measures in rural areas is not sales brokerage, but this work called 'management'.
The structure where urban-style taxes do not work well in rural areas is, conversely, a sign that 'demand for management will grow precisely in rural areas'.

Real estate, construction, professional services, nursing care, security, cleaning, demolition, regional finance, local governments...
There are many industries that have contact with vacant houses, but I see that what will first emerge in rural areas is this demand surrounding management.

So,

It has become long, so I will summarize it now.

Kyoto City's tax is a tax to return livable houses to residential use.
Neyagawa City's tax is a tax to return unused houses to the market.
Both are based on the premise that 'there is still housing demand'.

But in rural areas, there are houses that cannot be sold even if you want to, houses that have no tenants even if you want to rent them out, and homes that have suddenly become empty due to facility admission.

Therefore, just saying 'we will tax you if you don't put it on the market' probably won't solve it.

Shouldn't the question be not whether the house is being used, but whether the owner is fulfilling their management responsibility to the community?

If so, what is needed in rural areas might not be a 'tax to return to the market,' but a 'tax to return to management'.

It is not about blaming the fact that it is a vacant house, but about facing the state of it being neglected and causing trouble for the community.
It is a tax with that kind of concept.

That said, it leads to the question, 'So how do you specifically design that tax?'
How to create a mechanism where you are not taxed if you manage it, how to handle homes left empty due to facility admission, and how to use the tax revenue in the first place.

I intend to write about this carefully next time, including my own proposals.
Today, I will leave it at the point that 'you might want to wait a moment before bringing urban taxes directly into rural areas'.

So, if you own a vacant house in a rural area, first just one thing.
Try to separate in your mind whether that house is currently a 'sellable house' or a 'house to be managed and protected for the time being'.
Just by clarifying that, it becomes much easier to see what to do next.

▼ Thank you for reading to the end.
If you think this article is even a little good, please 'like,' 'comment,' or 'follow'.

▼How to start a 'Regional Happy Business' created with weekend side jobs and weekday multiple jobs
To owners of small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas whose sales have hit a ceiling and whose existing businesses are shrinking due to population decline.

While actually operating a vacant house management business, I have been researching a side-income model based on 'cross-industry x vacant house management'.

Nursing care, demolition, landscaping, funeral services, newspaper delivery... your current job could potentially serve as an entry point into the vacant house business.

Click here for the magazine (¥1,480) that summarizes entry scenarios for 20 different industries↓↓

▼ Click here for the association's website, where you can read various topics related to vacant houses every day↓↓
https://www.akiyakanrishi.org/
▼ You can also see entries for the 'Vacant House Photo Contest' on Instagram↓↓
https:、/www.instagram.com/akiyakanrishi/
▼ Akiyakanrisha is looking for business partners nationwide↓↓
https://www.akiyakanrisha.net/
▼ We have started a podcast on YouTube↓↓
https://www.youtube.com/@user-ve5wl5gv7k/podcasts
▼ You can add our official LINE account as a friend. Please feel free to use it for questions, consultations, etc.↓↓