[cellularmitosis]

"letting property sit idle benefits the landowner"

Can you help me understand this? I've never understood why any property sits idle -- the property would need to increase in value fast enough to counteract property taxes, just for the owner to break even. And that's ignoring the opportunity cost of not filling the property with tenants.

To me, it seems that it would always make more financial sense to try and hit 100% occupancy, even if that means steeply discounting the rent. Wouldn't an empty property be hemorrhaging cash?

[TomMckenny]

In here are two reasons[1].

Another is this: a building nearly full rented has an easily calculable valuable based on its income. A building with a higher price but not trying to rent can, incredibly, claim to have a higher value. Especially if there are several building nearby claiming the same value.

If there is a debt associated with the building, it is especially in the owner's interest to keeping the supposed value of the building high even if they are loosing revenue at the moment.

If a few organizations own a large number of units they can strongly influence a market both of rental rates and building values by doing this. Undoubtedly to a net profit or they wouldn't be doing it.

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19427243

[bloomca]

For some people cost of owning – property tax, various services is not a big deal. Also, in some places property rises in prices just by itself (like in San Francisco), you just have to wait.

Sometimes people lose money, but at the end of the day they can sign a good deal on it (let's say couple of years), and it will compensate their losses extensively. But they will have this "ready immediately" sign all this time.

[lsiebert]

Property tax increases are regularly gamed using empty properties as examples.

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/11/property-tax-dark-sto...