If you think through to the second order effects, landlords will end up sharing the costs. Now if your restaurant tenant goes out of business it means he couldn't cut it in the market and you get a new tenant minimizing empty time. Now, that signal isn't there.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @HbdNrx
Who's going to move in if you evict your non-paying tenant? Another restaurant? Ultimately landlords will cut deals with restaurants because of this.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HbdNrx @CovfefeAnon
They have no power. The tenant has all the power. Firstly why should it be assumed they have reserves the tenant doesnt? Tenant stops paying they get foreclosed on.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Evictions mirror foreclosures depending on state: texas fast for both, NY slow for both.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Subsidy needs to be giving to landlords just as much as tenants otherwise you sink the economy with another foreclosure crises. There is no asymmetry on any fundamental level between LLs and tenants. A shopping center could easily be family owned.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Tons of families out there renting to mega-corps which makes perfect sense. Regional location knowledge is distributed - supply chain contacts and knowledge of how to run the stores are centralized.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.