TLDR: Cities are allowing developers to re-zone retail units that go un-leased. They can then be converted into live-work studios so people can run businesses from home ie. an artist running a home studio, a massage therapist taking clients, a home daycare, etc. Seems this could really help with California’s chronic housing crisis.
Obviously, but they are likely taking that money to invest in more profitable real-estate elsewhere. The ultimate goal here is to reduce the consolidation on the ownership of real-estate, meaning these investors will ultimately lose value. Morally, they could and should abdicate, but since when has that motivated the wealthy?
The mechanisms do exist for your suggestion, and some owners would actually be okay with it, but I would still expect a lot of opposition.
Look into the history of eminent domain too see (historically) just how receptive land owners have been to selling their land to the government.
All this is basically just to illustrate my original point:
I don’t think that’s a reason for inaction, but it does explain why real change is so hard to actually implement at scale.
I’ve been on a jury for an eminent domain case, I am familiar. Usually that’s when the government needs a specific piece of property instead of just wants to buy some kind of property in general.
England has done this, and it’s worked. I’m done speaking with you about this. Have a good weekend.