Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ehsurfskate t1_jaamank wrote

Reply to comment by SSG_SSG_BloodMoon in Midtown Owners Hedge on Costly Office-to-Home Conversions by psychothumbs

Right and "cheaper" is the issue. The landlord would need to do a ton of work, devalue an overleveraged building, and after everything end up with residential units that are "cheap" so there is no money to be made.

It would probably be better in the long run to tear down the buildings and put up residential in its place. That would be worth the tax subsidies.

1

SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jab68ed wrote

At a certain point "devaluing a building" is better than paying taxes on an empty building that no one can do anything profitable with.

Also at a certain point, doing a small amount of wall work and renting out as many huge residential units as there are bathrooms in the building is better than paying taxes on an empty building that no one else can do anything profitable with.

Like you're talking about the renovations being too expensive... Is that a reason to endlessly hold the property, pay taxes on it, and get nothing forever? No. It's a reason to lower your expectations. It's a reason for your asking price to go down until you're back on the demand curve.

1

ehsurfskate t1_jac4fjp wrote

You make some points but also have the underlying assumption of zero office tenants. With all the cost and devaluation of that work it might even be worth it for the owners to just hold on at 20-30% occupancy and hope the offices gradually fill back up. Plus, if the space is vacant they get tax breaks so the hit is not as bad.

Again, not saying it’s impossible but with a 100 million dollar investment owners will do everything they can to get that back before cutting bait and spending money on a reno.

1