Re:Empty storefronts are killing neighbourhoods
by toast0 on Saturday July 24, 2021 @02:51PM
(#27943494)
> While I don't necessarily advocate it, I'd say disqualifying empty buildings from insurance would do more to that end, as no bank or lender will take an uninsured asset as collateral on leverage/debt.
Unoccupied buildings generally require different insurance than occupied buildings, and it's often significantly more expensive. Although, apparently, not more expensive enough to balance the incentives to leave property empty.
While I don't necessarily advocate it, I'd say disqualifying empty buildings from insurance would do more to that end, as no bank or lender will take an uninsured asset as collateral on leverage/debt. The ones who do lend against that uninsured asset will impose interest rates on the debt to where it is cheaper for the owner to just rent the space.
It would be anti-inflationary as well, since it would reduce the amount of free money caused by cheap debt in the economy.
When you see empty buildings, you have to ask who benefits, and in the end, it's always the banks.