[Noisebridge-discuss] Occupying Vacant Commercial Property

[Leander Harding]

The most convincing legend I've heard about this is that in these buildings
are rent controlled to a maximum rent far below what the landlords think
the market will bear, and the only escape clause available is that the rent
control is lifted if the building sits unoccupied for ten years - and so
the recent realty boom in the city is causing just letting buildings sit
empty to appear more attractive because after all, no real estate bull
market has ever turned out to be a transient bubble lasting less than ten
years, *right*?

I have no idea if there's any truth to this, but it sounds plausibly awful
and it might explain why some landlords won't have anything to do with you
even though it seems as if it's in their best interest.

-Leander


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Garrett Mace <garrettmace at gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps bring up the other successful examples of this practice, and point
> out that the property is rapidly devaluing itself just sitting there. You
> are making a good faith offering to improve the property free of charge,
> which as of now is actively being destroyed by other people who already
> enter it without permission.
>
> On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:35 PM, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/13, Martin Bogomolni <martinbogo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I agree with Garret Mace ...
> >>
> >> First try to actually get the permission of the owner.  It's
> >> surprising, but many sites that are under construction, or awaiting
> >> permits, have owners that are friendly to uses that keep their
> >> buildings or sites "alive" in the meantime.
> >>
> >> It's one of the many reasons places like costume shops find homes for
> >> a few weeks at a time.
> >>
> >> It also helps to be polite, and be prepared to help set worries the
> > Not my strong suit!
> >
> > I actually talked to a different property's leasing rep. No anger, no
> > kissing up, just straight talk.  or He responded as if hearing an
> > unusual request and dismissed it. I think I may have then asked if
> > they support community so that people who have no money can get low
> > cost/free education.
> >
> > My reasons why the realtor/bank should do this are not the same
> > reasons as theirs. There's no agency; no paperwork to put it to them
> > in a comforting way.
> >
> > Trust is certainly an issue why would a property owner take the risk
> > on his investment?
> >
> > Anyway, I'm no good at this stuff.
> >
> >> owner might have to rest about liability.   Don't expect that you'll
> >> get everything for free, and be prepared to offer either money or some
> >> equivalent value to the owner in exchange.
> >>
> > Sure. I'm perfectly happy to clean stuff up and whatnot.
> > --
> > Garrett
> > Twitter: @xkit
> > personx.tumblr.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20130311/b1d60a2c/attachment-0003.html>