Humanities desk
< September 3	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 4

No meat on Friday questions...

I've read Fasting and abstinence in the Catholic Church but it doesn't appear to say much on when it started and location. I'm specifically trying to find out whether it would have been done in the Christian sects East of Iraq (More specifically the Saint Thomas Christians and others of India) prior to 1200 AD. Any ideas on where to look?Naraht (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it started in the Catholic Church - (a) First Council of Nicaea in 325 laid down some rules for fasting [1] [2] [3]. (b) Friday fasting goes back to the first century (alas, this reference doesn't specify which ancient writers mentioned it) [4]. (c) St. Irenaeus (2nd century) described Easter fasting in Greece [5].

If practiced by Christians in India before 1200AD - (a) The New World Encyclopedia mentions days of fasting in a period described as "after the 8th century" [6]. (b) The Encyclopedia of Protestantism describes fasting by Indian Christians in the centuries prior to Portuguese arrival in 1498 [7]. (c) The Xi'an Stele, erected in 781, is in China rather than India but I believe Chinese Christianity is supposed to have arrived via India - it says fasting is a mark of the Christian life [8].

Have you also looked at Apostles' Fast, Nativity Fast? The search terms "Sauma Rabba" and "50 Nombu" may also help. Hope this is a start! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retail landlords afraid to drop rents - what action can regulators take?

Here in Melbourne, Australia, the retail rental market has a MAJOR problem. Partly, this is due to the internet taking over retailing (this part can't be helped, and is not part of my question). But another major part is that retail rents are sky high. However, large swathes of shops in once-thriving retail shopping strips are lying vacant, covered in "for lease" signs. The reason, in many cases, is as follows: The landlord has taken, or may take, a loan using the property as security (e.g. a mortgage or line of credit). The value of the property (as assessed by the bank) is, in part, based on its supposed "rental yield". Of course, if the property is in fact vacant, this "supposed rent" is essentially, a "fictional figure" - the actual property rent yield is, in fact, $0.00 . But herein lies the rub: if the landlord drops the rent and gets a tenant, this "fictional figure" gives way to the ACTUAL rent being paid by the tenant - meaning the bank will revalue the property downwards, cutting the amount which can be borrowed against it. Obviously an outcome the landlord very much wishes to avoid. So what does s/he do? Stick to their high rental demands, and leave the property vacant! So here's the question: What can the regulators do about this situation? Is there some way the banking and lending regulators can change the "prudential controls" settings, to ban the banks from using what are essentially "fictional rental yields" on retail properties when extending mortgages, and insist they estimate "rental yield" FAR more conservatively (as in, at a rate at which the landlord would actually GET a tenant) when calculating how much to lend against a retail property?

(I am WELL aware that this would DRASTICALLY reduce credit available for retail property speculation - but from where I'm standing, this would be a GOOD AND DESIRABLE outcome. And yes, I know retail landlords would howl loud about having their credit against their properties reduced. But on the flip side, thousands of struggling retailers would be massively thankful to get rent relief. And hopefully, a lot of the "for lease" signs go down as retailers move into the now-reasonably-rental-priced properties).

So, here's my question - what levers - if any - can the regulators pull to address this situation, and allow our shopping strips to thrive once again, with landlords being free to charge reasonable rents - because they won't get a loan based on a "fantasy rent" in the first place?

Pinging @DOR (HK): given that you're our resident economist, and @John M Baker: as our resident corporate expert. Others welcome too, of course. Eliyohub (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See belowDOR (HK) (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having anyone move in may seem desireable, but it isn't necessarily desireable. Once someone moves in at a low lease, neighbors will expect the same low lease. The low leases attract less profitable tennants. The entire block descends as property values drop. Your scenario has (and does) happen regularly. There are two tools to keep an area from descending in value. One is to keep taxes high. The other is to keep lease levels high. There are ways to revitalize an area. You need to attract people. So, they need easy and free parking. They need a feeling that the area is safe, which usually means an increase in policing. Then, they need stores. Having high taxes that are deferred for the first year will help get businesses to move in. That has worked in my town. Downtown is doing well enough that the taxes pay for a free trolley service to take people from one end to the other and main street is expanding while lease costs are rising. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you assuming that a less profitable tenant is a less desirable tenant, from the perspective of those who frequent the neighborhood to shop? Watching many of the old (but unique) businesses in my neighborhood get killed by gentrification and the resulting high rents (which makes the whole area less desirable to shop in, as its uniqueness is now gone) only to be replaced by chain stores (or, as I described above, left vacant for years), is there any assumption that "higher property prices" and "higher rents" (especially when the result is "no tenant") are, in fact, a desirable thing, from a social perspective? Do higher retail rents (and thus "only more profitable - but less unique - stores surviving") make a neighborhood more desirable to customers - or do they (as I suspect) do precisely the contrary? Eliyohub (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why LANDLORDS leave property vacant instead of rent out to, essentially, the highest bidder. I answered that it is in the LANDLORD'S best interest to keep rent high, revitalize the area, and use tax incentives to bring in new tenants. You responded that this is gentrification which, in the United States, means that white people are pushing black people out of an area. That makes this a racial thing. It also assumes that black is equivalent to poor because there is no word for middle-class black people pushing poor black people out of an area. So, I have to assume that what you are really asking is why landlords don't let poor black people use their land at whatever rent they feel like paying because that will be good for the landlord. No. It isn't good for the landlord. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I work in a very similar industry and so I would suggest that the regulators first of all set a deadline and from that point forward the property value cannot be based on a fictitious sum but only on true value as based on current and existing rental income . Secondly they would need to force the banks, via legislation to allow for drastically increased terms to the debts allowing the retail owners to lower the rental requested income. This would allow them to let out the now empty lots. Further to this the loan to value ration should be fixed and not movable. fixed at the point of the loan transaction being granted and only revised at further draw downs. Rental incomes should be restricted by Non disclosure agreements thereby not detracting from current rental income, thereby couteracting the negative impact of the scenario in the answer above. The danger is that if the status quo is left to fester it could lead to much larger economic woes. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I question the basic assumption of "I have identified a problem. Therefor the only possible solution is increasing the size and power of the government".

Instead you should ask "if property owners desire to rent out property at the best rate they can get but don't want this to cause their bank to revalue the property downwards, why is it that no bank is meeting that need, and thus attracting more customers?" I know nothing about Australian politics, but I would be very much surprised if the current system of tying value to rents is not directly tied to existing regulations.

Another really good question is this: why is it that in some of the cities with the highest property values there are so many abandoned buildings? Why is it that some other cites in the world don't have any abandoned buildings? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the peppering your question with no less than 5 refnec, but rule 1 of explaining/fixing a situation, is to assess the situation is actual Until then, this seem to me quite like a "what unicorns' caretakers can do to prevent unicorns farting yellowish rainbows instead of regular?" question Gem fr (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the situation would eventually resolve itself. That is, banks which use irrational systems for ranking the credit-worthiness of landlords will get burned when those landlords with no tenants go bankrupt, can't pay their mortgage, and the bank gets a property worth far less than what they loaned on it. Either those banks will then adjust their methods, or they will also go bankrupt and be replaced by banks with more rational policies. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...unless, of course all banks have to use the same method because the law requires them to do so. I don't know if this is the case in Australia, but worldwide the banking industry is heavily regulated. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even if the law do not require it, being too big to fail makes it more profitable to use a silly more risky method than to use a proper method that would turn down customers. Then smaller banks, even if not too big to fail, have no choice but to do the same or be kicked out; besides, the method is standard business practice, so...; moreover, you can easily hedge the risk to, say, AIG... Then sh*t happens Gem fr (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gem fr: sorry for my lack of citations. HERE is the source. To quote: Accepting a lower rent effectively lowers a property's value and can push it into negative equity. "Once they agree to a lower rent, it triggers a revaluation which can result in refinancing," Mr Nucara said. Eliyohub (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for government solutions, one that comes to mind is rezoning the business district to be dual residential/business. Thus, the vacancies left by all those brick-and-mortar businesses being replaced by Internet companies can be filled by people looking for homes. The effort to redesign the shops might be fairly minimal, assuming they already have bathrooms with hot and cold water. You'd want to put in a shower, and some form of kitchen. I don't think full ovens and stoves are necessary for everyone, these days. A microwave oven and toaster oven and maybe portable induction cook-top could just be plugged in at a convenient counter, and a mini-fridge may be sufficient. If the business lacks closet space, a portable wardrobe could be brought in. A lack of privacy could be remedied by window coverings and portable room dividers. So, in this way, the dual-use aspect would be preserved, and it could be converted back to a store if the situation changes. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Methink you should include this ref in the question.

The ref include the following:

"Some owners have had their heads in the clouds. They've had a spectacular run with tenants on three five-year lease terms. With average yearly rent rises of 3 per cent, the rent has effectively gone up 45 per cent in 15 years. But that's unsustainable.

That is, prices are just to high, according to the professional. So what happen next? well...

"Rents have gone down 30-40 per cent. They've got to get a new tenant and start all over again with offers at half the old rent. They need time to adjust to that," he said.

And then

The new vacancy rate for Bridge Road, between Punt Road and Church Street, has fallen to 7.39 per cent from 17 per cent. It's a sign that landlords have started to adjust and renewal has started...asking rents plunged from $1100 a square metre to $500

So the problem you pointed out does NOT qualify as a MAJOR problem, if a problem at all, and is actually solving itself: landlords are adjusting, despite their understandable reluctance. Problem solved.

You just fell prey to the paradise fallacy: comparing the real to some unreal, ideal, situation. In this case: where the real adequate rent would be known by some Angel, and regulators would be able to hear the divine message, and then somehow force the reluctant landlords to adjust. Well, that is nonsense. Fallacy. Real world just doesn't work like that. Gem fr (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this make it hard to follow who wrote what. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Gem fr (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have bothered you (and other readers). Now, I still feel some way to point out the lack of ref would be useful (in an article, refnec tag would just be inserted, but that would be even more disruptive here) Gem fr (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way to handle this is to write a new comment at the bottom saying "User:example says that the moon is made of green cheese. I question that claim. My references[9] say that the moon is made of orange-yellow cheese." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I do that usually; I just felt that not enough in the case. And anyway you don't even need ref to insert some refnec about the moon is made of green cheese Gem fr (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US, municipal governments usually have the power to seize property for public use, and public use may include redistributing to private individuals/orgs for commercial purposes. The municipality would have to pay just compensation. Unless the landlord agrees to either start renting/selling or just settle on a price, there would very likely be a court battle over what qualified as just compensation. The municipality would certainly argue that that the market price is obviously not the market value if there is a vast surplus of supply. I know there are towns that have established a policy that all land zoned for development must be developed or it will be seized, and there are many municipalities in which abandoned property is regularly seized, but I'm not aware of any place with a blanket policy of seizing unoccupied/unused property that is owned and developed. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These disputes over "fair market value", just price, etc. rarely fare well, even when corruption, abuse of power etc., which are always lurking around, are not involved. And they often are: land management is one of the juicy business featured in fiction about mob and official, and according to transparency international it affect 1 out of 5 people worldwide https://www.youtube.comi/watch?v=l_BfmdPginA Gem fr (talk) 06:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR: A much debated policy option to the original question about what can be done to bring vacant retail / commercial property back onto the market is a vacancy tax. Property owners (who, through the use of sub-leases may not be the LANDLORDS) may be made subject to a tax if their property is not utilized either within a specific time following departure of the previous tenant; or, if it is not let for a certain portion of the year. This has the advantage of encouraging greater real estate utility, and the disadvantage or really, really annoying property owners. Including, I should add, owners who do nothing “wrong” and keep their property fully utilized at market rates. That’s because forcing more space onto the market would tend to drive down rents for those other, “good” LANDLORDS. The Law of Unintended Consequences wins again!DOR (HK) (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]