[embedding-shape]

> "Last value" is pretty meaningless when it's stale though.

For who and in what way though? Every entity involved wants to keep the price high, except the renter/new buyer, so with that in mind, "Last Value" seems optimal for achieving that.

Maybe it's different in the US, but in Spain there is a ton of properties that sit completely empty and unused, even since earlier than 2008, just because the owners don't think the value is enough to sell yet, and they wouldn't earn enough renting it out, so everyone (except renters/new buyers) seems to prefer it just sits empty for decades.

[AnthonyMouse]

> For who and in what way though?

For anyone who wants an accurate accounting.

Suppose the building is supposed to be worth $20M, has an existing $10M mortgage and is actually only worth $10M. The landlord comes to you and wants to borrow another $5M against the building. Pretty important to the lender at this point that they're not overvaluing it, right? Or the same if they go to a different bank trying to refinance an existing mortgage they're already underwater on when using an accurate accounting.

[grebc]

Commercial borrowers have to pay for a valuation report by a bank approved valuer.

[AnthonyMouse]

Then why does anybody care if they rent out some of the units for a lower rent?

[grebc]

You keep asking the same question and the answer is the same in all these.

You don’t like it. We get it.

No one is doing anything illegal. If the bank thought a customer couldn’t pay, they’d get foreclosed, end of story.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not a matter of whether I like it. It's a question of why the bank, unless required to do so by some kind of absurd perverse regulatory incentive, would do something which is not only harming others but also increasing the default risk for the bank by reducing the income of a borrower who, if they can't make the payments, will cause the bank to have to write off millions of dollars by foreclosing on an underwater building.

[grebc]

Harming others is a stretch.

You’re also assuming every vacancy has this pigeon holed financial setup. A LOT of commercial property is freehold.

I’m honestly at a bit of a loss that people feel they can tell others what to do with their property because it’s vacant. That’s not how society works, and it won’t change to that either.

[PaulHoule]

... who therefore agree with the assumptions of this broken system.

[grebc]

Broken how? The owner/bank are fulfilling their obligations. You just don’t like the outcome.

[BrenBarn]

When people are fulfilling their obligations and most other people are not happy with the outcome, that usually means the definition of "obligations" is wrong.

[grebc]

Way to change the goal posts to suit.

[bluedino]

There are buildings in my town that haven't been used in 20-30 years. And that's in the 'modern' shopping area. In the old 'downtown' area there are some that have been empty for 40+ years.

[throwburn202605]

There's a building near my office. Never technically finished so empty for 10+ years. I believe the two owners had a disagreement.

One day a crew turns up and starts jack hammering away a gangway. Its technically now two buildings; one of them is still unfinished and empty, the other has now been finished and is up for rent.

In terms of my utility I would prefer things renovated, changed, or rented out to funky things than have ghastly empty buildings

[wewtyflakes]

This sounds like the worst case outcome for society; real estate permanently allotted to some entity that chooses not to use it. It is not an envious model; it is a model that should be eliminated.