Why do landlords leave storefronts empty?
It’s bad for surrounding businesses and for the neighbourhood as a whole when storefronts are left vacant for years, but some landlords let this happen and there’s no deterrent. Eater looks into the phenomenon in the Mile End.
walkerp 13:49 on 2019-05-28 Permalink
I thought that there is some significant tax incentive for the landlords who keep commercial space empty but I have never actually known if that was true. Can anybody confirm?
mare 16:14 on 2019-05-28 Permalink
They probably eventually want to sell to a chain like Starbucks etc, and with the current real estate market in Mile End, renting it out is just a nuisance compared with the yearly value increase of the land and the building. Also an empty space is worth (much) more, since the new owner doesn’t have to wait until they can move in and doesn’t have to evict the current tenant with possible legal and PR troubles that could backfire.
Ephraim 11:23 on 2019-05-29 Permalink
Anyone know if the city rebates the property tax for unoccupied commercial space? Maybe the city should have a maximum rebate period, for example, up to 6 months in a 10 year period? And maybe after a period there should be an unoccupied space tax or a requirement to allow it to be used for community service at no charge while unoccupied (with a condition to empty the space within 30 days if rented. Sort of community service squatters.
Tim 22:01 on 2019-05-29 Permalink
I would love to know what happened to the Starbucks on Van Horne opposite the Outremont metro. One night it was there, the next morning it was gone. The place was always jammed, so it couldn’t have been lack of customers. It was only there for about a year. My best guess: the landlord jacked the rent and the multi-nationally backed chain balked.