4 ms·
The building was occupied after the business was closed. The equipment seems to be unused by the occupiers and well preserved. If McDonalds plan for the buildin
by soneca 5y ago
The building was occupied after the business was closed. The equipment seems to be unused by the occupiers and well preserved. If McDonalds plan for the building was abandonment or demolition the illegal occupation seems to have zero negative impact to their business. If the plan was to sell the building, most likely it had a positive impact to their business.
I see no angle where this action could have a moral hazard effect that could prevent future business from investing in that neighborhood
- tasubotadas 5y agoWhat about respecting private property and law?
- swiley 5y agoThe justification for private property is that the market would force it to be used somewhat optimally. Modern financial instruments and zoning regulation have distorted this to the degree that real estate can be extremely irrational for decades and often people just go without many services (such as housing) due to this. I'm generally pro private property but at least from the perspective of someone living in the US I sometimes question the idea when it comes to real estate in developed areas.
- mustafa_pasi 5y agoThey are just moving fast and breaking things. You don't become rich by respecting the law, either.
- soneca 5y agoThat has to be dealt with. If the city buys the building and reach a fair agreement with McDonalds, I still don’t see risk of moral hazard.