this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023

283 points (98.3% liked)

News

23296 readers

928 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

283

The hidden culprit driving America’s apocalypse of boarded-up storefronts is the banks (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] J12@lemmy.world 81 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to sit on property. There’s an old fast food restaurant near my neighborhood, boarded up, trash everyone, it’s a eyesore to the community. The owner wants an unreasonable amount for it. It’s been sitting empty for 10 years.

The government needs to step in, tell the landlord to rent the place out, sell it or we’re going to take it and turn it into affordable housing or a park.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

50% vacancy tax. Any property that is vacant for more than 50% of the year would require the owner to pay 50% of the assessed value, unless they can prove there is zero demand for the property at any price.

Would solve the problem very quickly. It's a fair, equitable, market driven solution to the problem of real estate vacancies. But governments are much more concerned with maintaining the illusion of value, than effective land use.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We have something better called eminent domain.

[–] restingboredface@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That would set a dangerous precedent though.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I'm just kidding that would be a chaotic nightmare.

[–] w3dd1e@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I work in commercial loans for a living. I can’t speak to other properties that aren’t securitized, but they can’t exactly just take your property without approval. there are exceptions to the rule but it would still require a lengthy and pricey legal process.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I'm glad to hear it tbh

[–] kemsat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

👆

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Eminent domain requires the government to compensate the land owner with the "fair market value" for taking their land. As the "fair market value" is so overinflated that no one can afford to rent the space, taking vacant properties through eminent domain is not a solution.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

There’s an old fast food restaurant near my neighborhood, boarded up, trash everyone, it’s a eyesore to the community.

Do you not have local ordinances requiring property owners to maintain them? Here's language in a local cities code:

All buildings, both existing and new, and all parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. All devices or safeguards which are required by this Building Code in a building when erected, altered or repaired, shall be maintained in good working order. The owner or the owner's designated agent shall be responsible for the maintenance of the owner's building.

Not maintaining it would result in fines, which the property owner could pay, but the city could either keep increasing the fines to the point where its cheaper for the property owner to sell it.

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Land value tax would fix this

[–] captainrob@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Zoboomafoo @J12 reforms don't work. Change the system and change the rules. #eattherich

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

No thank you, I don't subscribe to revolutionary ideologies that want to tear down the system then figure out what to build on the ashes

[–] jlou@mastodon.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not all anti-capitalist ideologies are like that. Some of them have a clear vision of what to build: workplace democracy, social ownership of the means of production and common ownership of land and natural resources

[–] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Those are all great goals, I just think that the idea that everything needs to be torn down before it can be rebuilt is self defeating.

[–] captainrob@mastodon.social 1 points 1 year ago

@Zoboomafoo Then you're doomed to subsist in a system that will chew you up and spit you out without a care in the world. “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.” #eattherich

[–] Pringles@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you build a country on debt, don't be surprised when the banks end up holding all the cards. Those landlords took a risk and now it's biting them in the ass. And honestly, looking at the conditions in those loan contracts, those are pretty big gambles. I understand putting your money to work, but then it never was their money to begin with.

[–] derpdiggler@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

Interest rates were too low for too long.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Culprit?

You say it like its a bad thing.

We dont need brick and mortar storefronts for most industries now, only a small handful still need people to go in person.

All of these stores and parking lots could become affordable housing instead, and the companies can move to warehouse+distribution models which work infinitely better, are better for business, better for consumers, and better for the environment.

1 truck delivering 20 deliveries uses a fraction of the gas as 20 individual people driving to the store to pick up their item.

Dozens of locations can amalgamate into a single warehouse, using a fraction of the footprint and centralizing all their storage, production, distribution, and management.

Required workers to get the product into a persons hand reduce substantially, which means overhead costs go down, which means better profits for the company and better ability to compete on the market.

And consumers have the luxury of items being delivered right to their doorstep.

The only industries that still actually need brick and mortar shops really are:

Restaurants, for obvious reasons
Clothing/shoe/etc stores, since it's extremely difficult to gauge if clothing will be a good fit for you over the internet so you still want to be able to try clothing on in person before purchasing.
Any other "You really wanna try and verify it is a good fit before purchasing" style industries, like mattresses.
A small quantity of locations specifically targeting emergency needs, that typically are open 24/7. Convenience stores, late night pharmacies, etc. Anything in the realm of "Its 1 am and I need this right now" is worth having a brick and mortar shop for.

Pretty much everything else is just strictly better to just order it online.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ew. No. Give me small curated stores. Give me people to talk to and items to physically look at. Give me a walkable area so there isn't an absurd amount of energy usage past the initial delivery which bulk reduces. Give me people getting to pick their work and lifestyle rather than all working for monopolies.

I really don't think warehouses and delivery is the answer for everything. I get that you like that from Covid but to some people that sounds awful, and I think you should hear that.

[+] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I care way more about the environment. Hundreds of people driving over to many individual stores is a big contributor to why things are the way they are.

Deliveries are just way better for the environment.

rather than all working for monopolies.

Centralization of the stores is not the same as a monopoly.

It just means instead of owning 8 individual locations across your city, they have 1 large location they can do everything out of. Manufacturing, storage, management, and delivery.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they have 1 large location they can do everything out of. Manufacturing, storage, management, and delivery.

Ok first of all that sounds like a literal ~~vertical~~ monopoly. Also yeah not likely either. Manufacturing in the same location? Not all businesses can or should be doing that. Chemicals are still toxic and dangerous, even 3d printing is potentially/literally toxic and even wood shops know to have ventilation systems just for wood dust.

Also I literally said people walking to their corner store which is wayyy better than a fleet of delivery vehicles driving out to each individual house the logistics of that which are insane considering just how often they would have to do runs to cover all times of the day when people might want or need items. And all this ignores the constant return rate of online purchases.

Again I like it in theory too but like actually take a step back and take a rational look at what you are suggesting for everyone. Trapped home alone with interactions only with delivery drivers. It sounds like the lawyer from Idiocracy where we sit and ignore our garbage that piles up from all the wasted returns and climate change fucking us over.

Fucking Dystopic. Capital D.

[+] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok first of all that sounds like a literal vertical monopoly.

That is not what a vertical monopoly is at all, lol. Thats just a normal warehouse.

Vertical monopoly would be if they also owned all the companies that manufactured the parts they use to make their product, and the companies that collected the raw materials to make those parts, and they owned the land those raw materials were gathered from, and they owned companies that had a stake in the consumption of those end products.

IE if a company owned:

The land trees were harvested from
The company that harvested those trees
The mills that processed the trees into pulp
The manufacturing warehouse that turned the pulp into paper
The manufacturing that bound that paper into books
The press companies that produced the books
Had contracts with the writers that wrote the books
The distribution companies that distributed the books
The companies that sold the books themselves
And finally they owned companies that had vested interest in recommending people buy the books (teachers or whatever), or perhaps they owned companies that used those books (like perhaps they own a bunch of privately owned libraries or whatever)

Then that would be a vertical monopoly.

What I am talking about is just a "mom and pop" warehouse that purely owns one of step 4, 5, or 6.

There's a difference between centralizing where your books are delivered from (a warehouse) and literally owning the company that delivers the books and owning the company the books are delivered to (THAT is a vertical monopoly)

Not all businesses can or should be doing that. Chemicals are still toxic and dangerous, even 3d printing is potentially/literally toxic and even wood shops know to have ventilation systems just for wood dust.

Yeah... thats not an issue mate. Warehouses are big, it is 100% the norm to have both office space and the actual production in the same building, as they are usually an entire city block apart in terms of distance, sometimes more.

Its also quite common for the office space to be disconnected, still on the same property but just a second building that perhaps is connected by a walkway or pedway or whatever, or a hallway, etc etc. Typically the office space, the warehouse, and the manufacturing are very far apart.

Anyone who has ever worked at these types of facilities would know this.

Also I literally said people walking to their corner store which is wayyy better than a fleet of delivery vehicles driving out to each individual house the logistics of that which are insane considering just how often they would have to do runs to cover all times of the day when people might want or need items.

It is indeed a very complex logistical problem.

The nice thing is pretty much every developed nation in the world solved it countless years ago via something we all know called Mail. Literally everyone uses it everywhere, and many of the big nations even have several mail options to choose from between their nationalized public service mail or competing privatized mail companies.

Not exactly an issue in 2023 to mail something to someone.

Trapped home alone with interactions only with delivery drivers.

Do...

Do you...

Do you only socialize and go outside explicitly just to buy stuff? Do you literally never step outside and go interact with people unless you have to go and buy a thing?

Do you need help? Are you doing okay? You're exhibiting some chronically online symptoms mate, I'm gonna prescribe a healthy dose of "go touch some grass"

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

SpongeBob above, you are a pedantic nerd who locked onto one thing to over explain to prove you are smarter than me.

Ew. Alright you have picked your side you could just say that.

Do you need help? Are you doing okay? You're exhibiting some chronically online symptoms mate, I'm gonna prescribe a healthy dose of "go touch some grass"

Also what a garbage way to talk down to people. It literally shows you don't care you just want to feel the dopamine of feeling superior.

...Building hundreds, thousands? of multiple block large warehouses that serve where? How many? Insane. Still dystopian.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I care way more about the environment

Then why not mention that walkable communities are better. If communities are built so people don't need to drive across the city to actually do anything then it would be better.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then why not mention that walkable communities are better.

You fundamentally just cannot fit the entire necessary amount of goods that an entire community of people needs within walkable distance.

You absolutely 100% can fit the common things they need day to day, like a doctor, optometrist, dentist, grocery, convenience store, vet, etc within walkable distance.

But there's a behemoth of random other junk that people want/need, and everyone is diverse. They have their own hobbies, their own needs, and you cant cram all of that within walkable distance, period.

You're gonna have random people that want to order LEGO, people into knitting, people into carpentry, people into skiing, people into kayaking, etc etc etc etc. The list is borderline infinite.

You need those to be somewhere within distribution distance, which is a very large radius (~100km is pretty reasonable), it can be an entire city over even.

But when you scope out to an entire city of people with a population in seven digits, you will check off pretty much every box you can think of.

So if you have a few thousand Kayakers distributed across a ~100km radius between 2~3 towns/cities, you really dont benefit from having the mom and pop kayak shop having like 8 locations to try and reach them all.

If they have 1 single warehouse where they make, store, and manage their kayak orders and simply just deliver them out to order, that pretty much always is simultaneously more cost effective, cheaper, and better for the environment.

Compared to if those ~thousand or so kayakers make individual trips to their nearest stores to buy a kayak.

[–] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So a warehouse for every single good a person would want? A blender warehouse, a tire warehouse...

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

If you wanna be reductive about it, sure I guess

[–] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

While you aren't wrong, sometimes it's just really nice to browse through a store and see what they have. I can scroll through Amazon and Etsy all day, but going into a store just brings a different, valuable experience.

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel like a big factor here is that it costs Amazon basically nothing to add another item for you to scroll through. Brick and mortar stores are naturally more restricted so you get a more curated inventory. One thing I like about shopping at Costco is that I never have to decide if Xyzxel or Bimdang is the more trustworthy brand.

[–] girlfreddy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Amazon Canada is overpricing a shit ton of their items compared to other stores as well.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can tell when something is a piece of shit when it’s in my hand.

If I want to return something i got online I have to get my fucking inkjet printer working (or go to a Staples) to print the return label from my email and then go to the post office and ship it back.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I live about a mile from an Amazon Fresh store, and that makes it really convenient to return stuff to Amazon. I think a future where more purchases are delivered would include locations near everyone where you can easily return items from any retailer.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 3 points 1 year ago

Ok but that sounds literally impossible. Logistics for any store being able to accept returns from every other store? This not to speak of the logistics of return items which are often just thrown away with wasted hours, effort, and energy.

It would be a lovely dream but we can't live in them. We must live in reality.

[–] SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nice experience doesn't pay the bills for a store owner who has more overhead than an online store.

[–] Ejh3k@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your whole argument is based on "goods are driven to a shop, and then people drive to that shop." I live in a city, I just walk to the store and buy the thing. It's much better for the environment than a truck driving to my home to deliver a a package of an item that weighs 100g

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I just walk to the store and buy the thing.

The extremely vast majority of people do not have (insert their hobby here) available for purchase within walkable distance.

Groceries, dentist, pharmacist, optometrist, alcohol, convenience store, etc? Sure, those are pretty much always within walkable distance.

But everyone has other random stuff they need and that is almost never within distance. Everyone's got something they like to consume/buy/coolect/use/whatever, and its extremely common for whatever that thing is to be simultaneously too low in demand to have coverage across their entire city, but high enough demand that theres some locations for it here and there.

Like, I dunno, 3d printing. Its common for most cities to have a couple places you can buy 3d printing stuff. But it sure isn't so widespread that even 5% of the city's population is within walking distance of a store to buy 3d printing supplies.

So there will be a very very sizeable chunk of the population that occasionally buys (thing) and the nearest store simply just isnt within walking distance to get.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

This is funny to me because I buy my clothes, and even my mattresses, online. But I go into my local hardware store, and even the dollar store, frequently. You actually forgot to mention grocery stores. As an online shopper, my real problem with stores is that they never offer the best product. But they COULD. And then I would go to stores all the time.

You also make the delivery truck vs. passenger vehicle argument, but I'm gonna make the induced... Supply argument. I'm in my car anyway, going to the grocery store and then I go over to the next store. I run my errands all together, and never make a car trip to a specific store unless its an emergency. Strip malls are actually so much better than those big plaza (Walmart, big box stores) style shopping centers. But yeah the day it becomes safe to bike that trip I'm never looking back.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

I actually just had an idea the other day, I have no idea if it's crazy or even feasible, but thinking of online shopping and behemoths like Amazon I was wondering why the government couldn't serve that role?

Any corporation/business can go to the "government distribution center" that has its own online shop like Amazon, would distribute via USPS/ups or whatever, and has the added benefit of requiring all products be verified as "not absolute shit or dangerous." It's not the governments decision what to sell or what is allowed other than those deemed unsafe or whatever.

No one actually loves Amazon they love the convenience of having so many things on one site. We break up a monopoly, get to employ people with better wages and working conditions, and still get the same access to the same products and potentially have an additional revenue if the costs aren't too high. Maybe we lose the same day shipping for some stuff, but for a lot of us we don't get that as it is. Prime doesn't even come in 2 days for me anymore.

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it hidden?

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It sure is, if you’re insanely wealthy and out of touch or the ownership class thinking they’re being sneaky.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago

It is one big teetering house of cards.

[–] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

Great system we've got there.