What "sketchy tactics" are you referring to? Aside from an eminent domain seizure -- and these are quite rare -- there really isn't anything they can do to just "get" your building.
There's also the issue of slightly sketchy property tax reassessments that are a hallmark of many neighborhood revitalization projects. There is almost always a law stipulating the maximum year-over-year rate increases but slap the maximum rate on a stubborn holdout for enough years in a row and that 15% maximum annual reassessment increase (the maximum in my city) can turn even the least valuable property imaginable into an unaffordable anchor around the owners neck within a few years.
Oh yes, the old 'tax them off their land' strategy.
Many old timers who 'owned' land in the gulf islands near Vancouver Island complain about that one.
My whole point is: people have been (almost) making it sound like a typical speculator (in NYC) can just grease a few palms and get some tasty piece of property condemned and handed over to them.
Maybe in Rhode Island, but in NYC... no.
https://www.nc-eminent-domain.com/eminent-domain-basics/priv...
Basically in a gentrifying market (i.e. the very properties "they" are after) that tactic (even if you could pull it off these days) isn't applicable.
Here's the top google result for example: https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/ar...
Yeah, in wisconsin the post-blight-declaration seizure was through eminent domain instead of bankers and private investors, but honestly, the wisconsin shennanigans really blur that line.
What I was trying to suss out is whether there's any evidence that this is a (widespread, feasible) tactic outside of ED land grabs.
It would probably be giving the 'financial engineers' who came up with credit default swaps too much credit to say that they planned it that way all along.
But as a side effect, tons of properties dropped in value and were, surprise surprise, sold mostly in blocks.
Everything from systematic harassment to unleashing the local code enforcement to torching the building can be used to make your life miserable.
Light up the building and get it declared unsafe, the city then bulldozes the building and hands the bill to the owner.
(This is very different from how CA appraises property, and doesn't take into account how counties appraise tangible business property.)
The closest thing to a comparable use method listed on the page is a rental-based method, for which the example given is residential.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but your claim is certainly not supported by the only authority cited in the thread.
The Cost Method entails: - assessor calculates the cost to replace a structure with a similar one using today's labor and material prices - subtract depreciation - add the market value of the land - used to value industrial, special purpose and utility properties
This is not a rental-based method. #3 (Income-based) is a rental-based method, and is used for residential and commercial non-industrial (i.e., retail or office) sites.
The property mentioned in the NYT article is currently an industrial site and would be governed by method #2: replacing the current factory with a similar facility (i.e., comparable use) based on today's costs.