Hacker News Reader

Comment by em500 | Hacker News Reader

Many countries especially in continental Europe have strong pro-tenant rights. Often the rent contract cannot be terminated by the landlord, only by the tenant, which can make it more profitable to leave property empty vs renting it out. (When a tenant-occupied property is sold, the new owner in some countries cannot terminate an existing rent contract, which makes the property less valuable on the market vs empty properties.)

View on HN

Yes, I understand that selling a rented property can be less profitable than selling a property without a rent contract. But holding on to a property that generates no income is even less profitable.

On an abandoned property, the land may appreciate faster than the improvements depreciate. As long as that pace exceeds the mortgage interest (if any) and property tax (ibid), it's profitable. There are other possible complications too which might swing it, like income tax deductions.

Sometimes seemingly abandoned buildings are used for one-off occasions which generate income: downtown LA is full of "historic" buildings which the owners allow to dilapidate outside of a few areas they can rent out once or twice a year to a film crew.

edit: another thing -- rich people procrastinate too, in fact many of them can afford to procrastinate on matters like this, and they may rather take a loss than confront the anxiety and work of selling or renting out the property

Sorry, but I fail to see how owning an abandoned building is MORE profitable than having people living there and collecting rent on it, even if that means that you have to spend part of that income on maintenance costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com