> I think one solution to lower rent is a rule that for every month a rental property is vacant its book value declines by 10 times the rent.

Wouldn't that just lower its property tax, thereby making it more profitable for owners to leave venues unrented (compared to the status quo)?

Right now commercial real estate owners are incentivized to never lower rent even if a property is vacant for a long time because the book value of the property is tied to its rental rate even if it is vacant.

My fantasy solution is that ALL businesses near expensive areas must pay a minimum wage high enough to rent a place (or a room) there.

If the barista must be paid $109k to afford to live there, then let Starbucks jack the price of a plain black coffee to $17 for a small. Fewer people will be willing to pay this, Starbucks will go out of business and virtually nothing will fill its place. Suddenly these multimillion dollar homes will be in barren wastelands and, gee, maybe they won't be worth so much anymore. A softer solution is to pay the low wage workers from the time they leave the front door, if the wages are insufficient to live nearby.

I've had the same idea. 1 week of after tax wages must be enough to pay 1 month's rent within x miles on a y sq ft apartment.

And people should be paid for commuting. Unpaid commutes to work are a huge hidden subsidy for businesses. They use tax funded roads to allow workers to live farther away in cheaper locations and don't have to compensate them for the time needed to get to their jobs.

Exactly, let the business owners argue with the landlords instead of the tenants. This existing system just forces the dirty work on the weakest and most vulnerable person in the chain: the employee/tenant. Let the two powerful stakeholders battle it out.

Not sure I understand - is your goal to live in a barren wasteland? Because you can do that today, very cheaply.

The goal is to avoid having the working poor subsiding the property values of the rich. One reason some property is more "desirable" than others is its proximity to amenities. I'm pointing out an inefficiency in the market, and that the amenities shouldn't exist at subsidized rates.

So your methodology to help the working poor is to put their employer out of business entirely? Great plan.

Sort of. In the US if you don't have running water and power soon enough the teacher or some 'concerned citizen' will rat you to CPS and get your kids taken or at least badly hassled. As soon as you connect to water or power the grips of regulation force you into an expensive treadmill.