I think this is the best solution. Should be for commercial property too. I've seen buildings be unoccupied for over 15 years, how can that be in anyone's best interest?
Often because lowering the rent lowers the value of the property which was based on its expected rental return. 15 years is quite extreme but it would often be preferable to go a few years without commercial tenants than to lower the rent and wipe out massive amounts of value.
Agreed. Expected rental return is a perfectly valid way to assess the value of a building but I feel that having vacancies should detract from the value in a way you'd rather keep it occupied all the time.
It should. But it sounds like there's an artificial valuation being propped up by not considering long stretches of vacancies. Of course, this only benefits people who own the properties...
