It seems to be very easy for politicians (usually Democrat) to suggest policy solutions for problems that don’t work in a capitalist system. Isn’t this the concern, that we have universities across the country turning out graduates who are very socially “aware”, but they are told “we need to get this big square peg through that small round hole “. I agree with Bruce. These people make too many assumptions.
You have to ask why the Strib has lowered its standards to the point of publishing objectively false op-ed articles. High quality journalism, even opinion pieces, are always based in fact. We can disagree on how to *interpret* facts, but any opinion worth taking seriously it must be based in objective fact and use logic to support its thesis.
Thank you for covering this subject with Bruce Dachis. A review of why we continue to have siginificant available retail spaces and changing this for our downtown and Uptown corridors is critical to explore by our community leaders and residents. We need more discussions of how we got here so we can continue to move forward, fill retail spaces to provide much needed jobs and tax revenue to support important ongoing city initiatives.
Truly sorry to hear about the theft of your muffler, it is difinitely more difficult on certain days to remain optimistic but you always give us some specifics to hang on to. Thank you for your continued optimism and great reporting as always!
Terry, Thanks for doing this piece. There's still a "public debate" problem here, though. There HAVE been cases where owners have sat on empty commercial real estate, including even in areas that are IN DEMAND. Areas where any fool can see that there IS money to be made if an owner/landlord does anything even remotely smart. Certain locations on Grand Ave. in St. Paul come to mind. I would love to know WHY they do that. God Bless him for sitting with you to talk, but Mr. Dachis doesn't leave me enlightened on that point. So the issue becomes this: I read the Strib piece, and, yeah, it made no sense. But a guy steeped in real estate (which I am NOT) coming on, in a podcast or in print, and saying "never", "no way", "economic illiteracy", etc. leaves me still not knowing WHY owners DO this, anyway. And they DO do this.
When I am in a political discussion with someone who believes that we should charge landlords a fee for holding a property vacant, I'm not even interested in debunking the "sideshow" claim that they are actually making money from the tax write-offs. Of course they're not. But that's not the same as being able to make an argument that charging such a fee would not FURTHER INCENTIVIZE a landlord to do SOMETHING with the property. For all I know, still, after this interview with Mr. Dachis, maybe that would be helpful...? If not, WHY not?
Vacant commercial real estate is a civic problem. If someone actually believes the owners are making a PROFIT from vacancy, that's crazy. But logically, that does NOT invalidate the proposed "solution" (the extra vacancy fee) because the logic behind the proposed solution does not depend on the truth or falsehood of the claim that one can make a profit on a vacant property.
What would be really valuable in the local debate around this is having someone who knows real estate explain WHY owners DO this, and then, again from the perspective of one who is IN real estate, explain what he or she sees as something We The People can DO to further encourage landlords to quit sitting on vacant retail spaces. Continuing to do nothing is not a good option. Yes, we need to improve on all the other problems - crime, drugs, vagrancy, etc. But we ALSO need a tool of leverage to prod owners to PARTICIPATE with us in the comeback of a zone that's not doing well.
I suspect one reason owners sit on vacant properties is that the market conditions for sale are bad, and they believe that conditions will improve. On a personal level, that happened to me in '08 with a single family home. I didn't let it sit vacant, but the residential real estate crash shifted my thinking from "sale" to "let's rent this out for a while" until the market recovers.
I'm not plugged into commercial real estate. But I know, for example, the market has tanked for downtown Mpls properties. The Ameriprise building was purchased in 2016 for $200MM. It sold in Jan. '25 for only $6.25MM. That's a 97% drop. Yikes. Commercial property owners don't really have the option of doing what I did in '08, which is renting it out instead of selling. The reason the value of their properties dropped is precisely because they couldn't find renters.
Agree with your points though. It would be good to strong arm owners of vacant properties to make sure--at the very least--they're not creating a public nuisance.
It seems to be very easy for politicians (usually Democrat) to suggest policy solutions for problems that don’t work in a capitalist system. Isn’t this the concern, that we have universities across the country turning out graduates who are very socially “aware”, but they are told “we need to get this big square peg through that small round hole “. I agree with Bruce. These people make too many assumptions.
The naïveté of thinking business owners make money from vacant properties mirrors that of the city council’s DSA wing.
Maybe we need better public education?
I am sorry to hear about the muffler Terry!
Something that should be a couple hundred bucks to get replaced will probably cost 10 times that 😞
You have to ask why the Strib has lowered its standards to the point of publishing objectively false op-ed articles. High quality journalism, even opinion pieces, are always based in fact. We can disagree on how to *interpret* facts, but any opinion worth taking seriously it must be based in objective fact and use logic to support its thesis.
Hello Terry
Thank you for covering this subject with Bruce Dachis. A review of why we continue to have siginificant available retail spaces and changing this for our downtown and Uptown corridors is critical to explore by our community leaders and residents. We need more discussions of how we got here so we can continue to move forward, fill retail spaces to provide much needed jobs and tax revenue to support important ongoing city initiatives.
Truly sorry to hear about the theft of your muffler, it is difinitely more difficult on certain days to remain optimistic but you always give us some specifics to hang on to. Thank you for your continued optimism and great reporting as always!
Terry, Thanks for doing this piece. There's still a "public debate" problem here, though. There HAVE been cases where owners have sat on empty commercial real estate, including even in areas that are IN DEMAND. Areas where any fool can see that there IS money to be made if an owner/landlord does anything even remotely smart. Certain locations on Grand Ave. in St. Paul come to mind. I would love to know WHY they do that. God Bless him for sitting with you to talk, but Mr. Dachis doesn't leave me enlightened on that point. So the issue becomes this: I read the Strib piece, and, yeah, it made no sense. But a guy steeped in real estate (which I am NOT) coming on, in a podcast or in print, and saying "never", "no way", "economic illiteracy", etc. leaves me still not knowing WHY owners DO this, anyway. And they DO do this.
When I am in a political discussion with someone who believes that we should charge landlords a fee for holding a property vacant, I'm not even interested in debunking the "sideshow" claim that they are actually making money from the tax write-offs. Of course they're not. But that's not the same as being able to make an argument that charging such a fee would not FURTHER INCENTIVIZE a landlord to do SOMETHING with the property. For all I know, still, after this interview with Mr. Dachis, maybe that would be helpful...? If not, WHY not?
Vacant commercial real estate is a civic problem. If someone actually believes the owners are making a PROFIT from vacancy, that's crazy. But logically, that does NOT invalidate the proposed "solution" (the extra vacancy fee) because the logic behind the proposed solution does not depend on the truth or falsehood of the claim that one can make a profit on a vacant property.
What would be really valuable in the local debate around this is having someone who knows real estate explain WHY owners DO this, and then, again from the perspective of one who is IN real estate, explain what he or she sees as something We The People can DO to further encourage landlords to quit sitting on vacant retail spaces. Continuing to do nothing is not a good option. Yes, we need to improve on all the other problems - crime, drugs, vagrancy, etc. But we ALSO need a tool of leverage to prod owners to PARTICIPATE with us in the comeback of a zone that's not doing well.
I suspect one reason owners sit on vacant properties is that the market conditions for sale are bad, and they believe that conditions will improve. On a personal level, that happened to me in '08 with a single family home. I didn't let it sit vacant, but the residential real estate crash shifted my thinking from "sale" to "let's rent this out for a while" until the market recovers.
I'm not plugged into commercial real estate. But I know, for example, the market has tanked for downtown Mpls properties. The Ameriprise building was purchased in 2016 for $200MM. It sold in Jan. '25 for only $6.25MM. That's a 97% drop. Yikes. Commercial property owners don't really have the option of doing what I did in '08, which is renting it out instead of selling. The reason the value of their properties dropped is precisely because they couldn't find renters.
Agree with your points though. It would be good to strong arm owners of vacant properties to make sure--at the very least--they're not creating a public nuisance.