Comment by wvbdmp
2 days ago
I see this also, but I don’t get it. An empty building still costs a bunch of taxes and upkeep and still rapidly deteriorates without tenants looking after it. Aren’t these people hemorrhaging money? What do they have to show for it? My city actually handled a majority of the rent so a business could revitalize a large-ish property that had been empty for years. Of course it failed as soon as that deal ran out.
As I've said elsewhere, when the economy improves it will be rented again.
If.
And for how much?
The system is a formalised version of "Don't tell the Tsar bad news."
Everyone has to pretend Better Days Will Come™ while the economy saws through the branch it's sitting on.
It works until suddenly it doesn't, and the banks demand a bailout.
The economy has always had ups and down. While that is no guarantee, it is a strong sign. Inflation means that rent will get cheaper in real terms just staying the same. Things will be bad - again - for a few years, not that is nothing unusual.
Of course real estate is very local. There is a big difference between property in a growing city and land in a rural small town.
> and the banks demand a bailout.
Which will certainly be granted and thus Better Days *WILL* Come, at least in the localized "I'm taking practically no risk" sense.
So what is your solution that is impervious to a permanent or lengthy and gigantic downturn in the economy?
Except we have the entire commerical business districts of small and mid sized cities destroyed from these practices and there is often no bouncing back from that. Oops.
I think for businesses that own multiple properties, they can claim losses on vacant buildings to offset their taxes in other profitable ones.