4 ms·
Care to enlighten us?
by dazc 3mo ago
Care to enlighten us?
- grebc 3mo agoComments below. There’s no actual problem here to be solved. If people feel they have better uses for a property they should put their money where their mouth is.
- em-bee 3mo agothere is a problem to be solved. empty shops make shopping areas unattractive. walking through a half empty mall or shopping street is depressive. i see this all the time in china and in developing countries in general. they build huge malls, and then they can't fill them because there are not enough businesses who can pay the rent being asked. at least there is growth and the place will fill up eventually. but until that happens the place is less attractive. seeing the same in europe in malls or shopping streets is even worse because it feels like the economy is declining. you have to apply the broken window theory here. the more shops stay empty the less people will go there to visit the remaining shops. their revenue goes down, they can't afford the rent anymore and another shop is empty. if this becomes a trend then you risk that the shops will never come back. it is therefore in the interest of landlords and the city to keep the streets alive and fill them with businesses that attract people. ignoring this problem is just a sign of greed. instead of building a vibrant space they just want to extract as much money as possible. instead of being forced to foreclose the banks should be forced to extend the loan and eat the loss. foreclosing will cause them a loss too. so the banks are not better off either way. the article says the building is an income stream. no, it isn't. the building is part of a community. the needs of the community top your need to make a profit. yes, this means the community should probably contribute to make your work financially viable, and one way they can do that is by making policy that gives you more reasonable conditions to pay off your loan so that a foreclosure is not necessary.
- grebc 3mo agoIf you think there’s a better use it’s a free market. It’s even up for lease, you don’t even need to buy it ;)
- em-bee 3mo agono, i can't. the rent is to high. which means the rent is not market-rate. the free market was supposed to correct that, but it doesn't, so maybe this is not a free market after all.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- grebc 3mo agoYou’re correct in that you don’t want to transact. Everything else is your own opinion, which of course is fine.
- em-bee 3mo agoif my business doesn't make enough profit then i literally can't. that's not an opinion or a choice. that's a fact of life. and if noone is willing to pay that much rent whether they could afford it or not, then the rent is not market-rate. that's not an opinion. that's how market-rate is defined. it is what the market is willing to pay.
- grebc 3mo agoThat’s the free market in action. You can’t afford something, so you don’t buy it.
- em-bee 3mo agoyou are missing the point, i don't care if i can buy this or not. i care that the street is attractive to people. if i do have a shop in the street (because i can actually afford it) then i care even more because if the street is not attractive then that is hurting my business. the problem is not that i can't afford it. the problem is that NOBODY can afford it. free market rules then suggest that the value of that thing goes down and thus the price should go down too if the building owner has any interest in selling that thing. and here is where the free market idea causes a conflict, because if they don't have an interest to sell then their interest and the city's interests are misaligned and the city should force the building-owner out. or, you could also argue that the city itself is a market participant, because the city owns the land the shops are built on, and it leases or sells that land with specific expectations, namely that shops are built and rented out. if the renting out does not happen then the city's contract with the builder is violated and the city should have a right to take action.
- nitwit005 3mo agoHow, specifically? If they refuse to acknowledge the building is worth less than they expected, they aren't going to sell it to you at a price where you can make money either.
- grebc 3mo agoHave you ever considered that your opinion, that it’s worth less, is incorrect?
- nitwit005 3mo agoThat's another way of phrasing what I asked you to explain, without actually answering.
- grebc 3mo agoYou’re stating the outcome - the property is worth less - without understanding how people buy/sell said property. And asking why others don’t agree? The article outlines the methods used for the most part to the best of my knowledge, as someone who owns and deals in this space. I think you need to lay out a better argument for why your thesis is the case when what happens in the real world mirrors what the article discusses. Not to mention people forget property can be owned without a bank/loan, nor that vacancies are expected/factored in.