[grebc]

Yes I understand your point - you are just a commentator with no actual interest in the matter hand. Not an owner, not a tenant, just some random stranger strolling on the street thinking other people should do something because you think it's the greater good.

Now you're proposing a different ownership model completely or that a government/city should be able to force a legal owner out of their legally owned property?

Honestly I think you need to back up and really consider what you're proposing.

[em-bee]

i am considering what i am proposing. but i can't do that alone. throwing my ideas out there and having them critiqued with counterarguments is the point. if you just say i have no clue and my ideas are bad and i should reconsider then i am not going to learn anything. i can only reconsider if i get new input about what's wrong with my idea.

basically you act like the error in my idea should be obvious, and i should be able to figure that out by myself. well, no, because if i could, i already would have. i don't write stuff without thinking about it. it may look like that to you, but only because you seem to know something that i don't. please share.

and what do you mean by no actual interest? have i not explained my interest? do you think the interests of the people living in the city are irrelevant? only owners and tenants count? well, most certainly not. but if you do not accept that the city and its inhabitants should have an interest in this matter then our problem is that we have a fundamental disagreement in our worldview.

[grebc]

The error is you think you as a non-interested party you can tell people what to do.

No one’s outlined a scenario where the bank or the owner are violating some law/regulation.

[BrenBarn]

Well, sort of. One scenario is to say "it is illegal to let your property be vacant (for more than X months etc. etc.)". Then suddenly all these owners are violating laws. Another is to say "it is illegal to hold more than $100 million of wealth". Then a bunch of rich people are in violation. Laws are what we make them. The point here is that the current laws are inadequate to produce the society people want to live in. You may be right that no laws are being violated currently in many cases, but that doesn't mean things are fine; it just means we need better laws.

[grebc]

No one is getting that law across the line in any sane country, I’m not even sure why the conversation has veered this far off-topic. Suddenly because some people here do not like commercial vacancies all of a sudden laws are changing so properties are never vacant.

Can’t wait for people here to begin arguing Elon should just sell/give up his equity because Starship hasn’t launched successfully yet.

Not everything needs to make sense to a bunch of IT peeps so, politely, either genuinely learn about commercial property or take a hike.

[em-bee]

well i am not from a sane country i guess. keeping homes vacant is already illegal in germany in most places, and laws against vacant commercial properties are being discussed.

this is not just about how commercial property works, but this is about how urban planning works.

you keep insisting that i am a non-interested party. i am speaking for the city and the community. please explain to me how they are non-interested parties.

the needs of the community outweigh the needs of land and building owners. as an owner you are to serve the community. if you don't want to do that then you have no business being part of that community. we'll try to work with you to find an amicable solution, but if you refuse and leave your building abandoned then we can force you to sell. laws to that end already exist. they are used sparingly, but they are there if we really need them.