All that would result in is less transparency. People wouldn't put their house openly for sale anyone and you'd just create informal market places. Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.

> All that would result in is less transparency.

Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved.

> Or worse people would just hang onto properties and not sell them at all, biasing towards turning houses into rentals.

This is done already? Still an improvement over leaving them empty indefinitley.

> Most houses are listed publicly, require it for all of them. Transparency issue solved.

How will you do that. Remember: "I wasn't planning to sell my old house at all, but when I got this offer out of the blue I decided to take it".

They are already paying mortgage principal and interest, property taxes, utilities and maintenance.

Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant. There's also the risk of squatters, vandals, thieves, and partyers.

>Right. (Insurance, too.) It's very expensive to let a house sit vacant.

I'd argue it's not expensive enough since it's frequently done.

EDIT: This has already become a common issue in locations like NYC, big money parked into properties with many commercial and residential units vacant. Better to pass those fees and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss.

I've sold houses before. I hated every day it was sitting there sucking up money.

> Better to pass those fees

to whom?

> and borrow against artifically inflated value than it is to realize a loss.

Borrowing does nothing to stop one from losing money.

As for artificially inflated values, bank lenders are not stupid and are not going to loan against a phony value.