|
|
|
|
|
|
by jedberg
3855 days ago
|
|
|
> Observe any abandoned or unused commercial structure in your town, such as the old building Walmart vacated to build a bigger Walmart 1000 feet down the road. Did the price of building either structure include the cost of cleaning them up? The cost of cleanup typically falls upon the person who builds there next. If that new Walmart is built on a property that already had a strip mall, first they tear down the strip mall and bear that cost. The new Apple campus is a great example. They tore down a bunch of old HP buildings and had to bear that cost. They reduced the cost by grinding up the old buildings to make concrete for the new building. Also, they probably discounted the purchase price of the land to account for the cleanup, so in some respect, HP bore that cost too. |
|
|
Yes and that cause issue of abandoned sites, if the desirability of the site is lower than the price of cleaning up. Worse, there is not necessarily negative consequences that would push the market to avoid such situation. For heavily polluted sites like gas station, chemical plant, ... the owner of the land has generally made a profit, so disposable land is a viable business model. Not even counting that after enough years, the site could look clean enough to be resold.
At some point, it was discussed in Europe to impose a viable (i.e. funded upfront) reconversion plan for land used for stuff like gas station or landfill. The trigger in this case was some incident about some block of flat built on some forgotten nastiness by an unscrupulous builder. Not quite sure if anything actually happened.