[em-bee]

there 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]

If 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]

no, 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.

[grebc]

You’re correct in that you don’t want to transact.

Everything else is your own opinion, which of course is fine.

[em-bee]

if 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]

That’s the free market in action. You can’t afford something, so you don’t buy it.

[inigyou]

You are failing to look beyond the effects of one individual transaction. No snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche.

[em-bee]

you 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.

[fl4regun]

real estate must be the worst thing to use as an argument for "it's a free market" - because its one of the types of things which every stock is it's own, truly unique monopoly. I can't "freely" produce the same commercial property, unless I already own that property.

[grebc]

Commercial property is only unique in number on a street location factor.

Plenty of the same type of commercial properties exist right next to each other, happily too.

[fl4regun]

in order to join that market you have to buy at the inflated prices on the market, since current owners refuse to sell for a loss, there's nothing you can do as an individual to make this cheaper unless you already own the land.

Location still matters, as it does for residential, proximity to employees, or customers is important.

Zoning restricts what land can do what.

There's many reasons why this isn't a "free market"

[grebc]

The people advocating for change in this situation likely advocated for all the impediments you’re providing as to reasons why it’s not supposedly a free market.

Someone bought an asset they could afford to hold in bad times. End of story.

[inigyou]

There's something wrong with the structure of the market if people are holding assets they don't need that others could make better use of.