Only if you have such a loose definition of vacant where it includes people who haven't yet moved into their newly acquired house.

Or the recreational properties. My 2 bedroom 80+ year old cabin that isn't fit for winter season gets used every weekend in the summer for 4 months but counts as vacant for my province, mevermind that it is W hours from any major non agricultural employment opportunitiesx

I would venture a guess you've never owned a property to conflate "empty second home" with that "free housing for homeless" insinuation, as if those two concepts are in any way related.

Pretty sure that housing isn't the only place where you see redistribution as the solution though, that pattern always holds strong.

Homeless people make up about .2% of the US, so multiplied by 10 and that's 2%. If your country only has 1.02 people's worth of food per person, that's more of a shortage than a distribution problem. The same goes for housing.

This is a cute fact completely devoid of meaning.

If your homeless population is 0.1% of the population, only 1% of the housing stock needs to be second homes for this to be true.

If you think only the top 1% should be able to afford a second home, then you must think we should be artificially poor.

The top 1% in this country are VERY wealthy. The top 10% can EASILY afford a modest vacation home if that's a priority.

The solution isn't to take their homes in Big Bear and give them to homeless people in San Jose.

It's to build more houses in San Jose so that starter condos don't cost $800k...