I'm puzzled by the economics behind these statistics.

If property prices are going up, it is because there are people willing to pay more for a particular property than they were yesterday.

They are either i) buying so they have somewhere to live, or ii) buying so that they can earn rental revenue. I don't believe there is a class of buyer who buys so that they can sit on an empty property and wait for the price to go up. That is folly.

There are some clues in the article, though.

"We all walk past dilapidated houses with over-flowing mailboxes and unkept lawns. Rusted industrial site.s The perennial vacant shop plastered with rock posters."

These presumably fall into the author's "empty home" category. A predatory capitalist would snap it up at bargain basement cost (because of its condition), improve it, and then rent it out or sell it. Thus providing the housing the author craves. The fact that this is not happening indicates other forces at work. Deceased estates, perhaps, that are in the flinty grip of probate lawyers, or lost in the files of a junior clerk in a Bank's repossession department. Or simply properties that were bought decades ago, and whose owner cannot afford to either improve or sell.

Given such one-dimensional statistics, it is impossible to make a judgment. Unless of course you have a particular axe to grind.

Property is subject supply-and-demand fluctuations, just as it should be. At the moment there is more money in the pockets of the people, and they choose to invest in housing. As the economy flattens, so will the property market. That's just the way it has been, and always will be.

Menawhile, if governments can bring themselves to release more land for development, prices will stabilize. They can't do this easily, though, because the cry immediately goes up "you're favouring the developers".

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Is there not a law that property acquired prior to 1987 shall not be subject to any capital gains tax at all? If this is so, there is a huge disincentive to sell any such property, as one would suddenly forgo the luxury of having this tax-free income. Even if dilapidated and empty, one can still borrow from the bank on it's ever increasing value.

By the way, there certainly is nothing morally wrong with investing in the property market; where should one invest, especially after being burnt on the stock market? What is morally wrong, and leads to vacant housing priced out of reach of most first home buyers - is the preferential tax treatment given to income derived from property.

Income derived from dealing in real estate should be taxed at the same rate as income derived from dealing in vegetables. The tax system divides us into two camps, where the poor non-home owners help to subsidize the richer property owners.

your missing the main/point
the chinese..love to keep..the investment..in/mint un-used/condition
ya still get the tax grants/gifts/grifts..but the artificial shortage
cant be cured by building more mint stuff.

there should be a cost..to..having an empty house
investors should..by paying extra..cause their short-full
will cause our bubble..

it will..inflate ever further from
any real..housing DEMAND*[ie houses..to..live..IN*]
not just invest..in..for investment grade...bubbles

-we-cant-trust-momentum-in-the-housing-market-anymore-
it-is-driven-more-by-psychology-than-any-careful-calculations-than-affordability-as-soon-as-its-weakening-they-ll-exit

http://investmentwatchblog.com/shiller-we-cant-trust-momentum-in-the-housing-market-anymore-it-is-driven-more-by-psychology-than-any-careful-calculations-than-affordability-as-soon-as-its-weakening-theyll-exit/

Banning the feeding of homeless people in public spaces puts the problem out of sight and out of mind, for monied people who don't want to think about it; but such a law does absolutely nothing to resolve the problem of homelessness and hunger in our communities.

Facing an uproar from homeowners, two members of the Los Angeles City Council have called for the city to follow the lead of dozens of other communities and ban the feeding of homeless people in public spaces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/us/as-homeless-line-up-for-food-los-angeles-weighs-restrictions.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&

They began showing up at dusk last week, wandering the streets, slumped in wheelchairs and sitting on sidewalks, paper plates perched on their knees.

By 6:30 p.m., more than 100 homeless people had lined up at a barren corner in Hollywood, drawn by free meals handed out from the back of a truck every night by volunteers.

The world's 100 richest people earned
a stunning total of $240 billion in 2012 –
http://rt.com/news/oxfam-report-global-inequality-357/
enough money to end extreme poverty worldwide four times over,
Oxfam has revealed, adding that the global economic crisis is further enriching the super-rich.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/obamacare-employers-to-cancel-plans-for-millions-shift-costs-to-workers/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/cbs-obamacare-hiking-costs-for-employers-forcing-them-to-drop-coverage-for-workers/

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/california-teachers-pensions-sink-further-into-debt/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000002

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/tsa-spent-900-million-behavior-detection-officers-who-detected-0

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/nsa-contractors-are-literally-paying-off-the-senators-in-charge-of-keeping-them-in-check/
“The richest 1 percent has increased its income
by 60 percent in the last 20 years

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2514144/The-painkillers-contain-salt-Soluble-versions-paracetamol-aspirin-ibuprofen-patients-22-risk-strokes.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/cost-of-uk-home-ownership-pushing-people-over-the-edge/

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/chomskys-latest-gasser-israel-is-us-military-base/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR7mngELoWI#t=261