4 ms·
It's also possible the new landlords internally drove out the tenant to not have to deal with the hassle of having a tenant. This could make sense if they wante
by mook 6y ago
It's also possible the new landlords internally drove out the tenant to not have to deal with the hassle of having a tenant. This could make sense if they wanted the building as a store of value and didn't care about the rental income. If nobody is there nobody will accidentally start a fire while cooking.
It would probably make sense for the city/whatever to incentivise against that.
- BurningFrog 6y agoOK, that also seems possible. You this kind of thing in San Francisco, where decades of regulations banning and mandating everything anyone has ever thought of, makes doing nothing with a building sometimes the only remaining strategy.