Oct. 16, 2013:  Frustration over prominently visible storefronts in Bronxville's downtown district that have sat empty for a number of years has led some residents to speculate that substantial tax benefits accrue to the property owners and continue to serve as a disincentive to lease the spaces.

According to village resident Jay Urstadt, chief executive officer of Urstadt Biddle Properties, Inc., however, the bottom line is that an empty store loses money. "It's inconceivable to me that an owner would be keeping vacant stores off the market," Urstadt said. "The most illogical game plan would be to keep a property vacant for some tax purpose. An empty property costs a lot of money each year."

The costs of doing business--mortgage payments, insurance and maintenance expenses, and even taxes--must be paid whether a property is occupied or vacant. Both Urstadt and Mayor Mary Marvin agree that the minuscule tax savings a property owner might realize by filing a certiorari for assessment relief would not come close to offsetting revenue that could be earned from a lease.

Landlords, depending on the type and size of their business, have different incentives in keeping their commercial properties occupied. Marvin noted that the independent owner with only a few properties would "feel the revenue pinch" right away if a store sits unoccupied. The same holds true for co-op residents whose board owns storefront properties, but with an added twist. Co-op residents would have to pay more in fees to cover lost revenue.

Real estate investors with a large portfolio of properties, however, have more room to work within, especially if one or two vacancies represent a small percentage of their total holdings. A small piece of property in a large portfolio might not take precedence in the investor's overall leasing strategy, Marvin said. He can afford to hold out until a renter is found willing to pay a relatively high rent.

No merchant wants to be next to an empty storefront, according to Marvin, but there is nothing the village can do to force a landlord to fill a vacant space. "Citizens have asked me if we can penalize these owners who leave their stores perpetually empty," she said, "but it's illegal to impose a fine." The fact remains, however, that a perpetually empty store has a negative effect on neighboring lease rates, brings an unattractive element to the downtown business district, and affects the synergy among stores that are operating.

Municipalities can, however, charge a yearly inspection fee on vacant properties, which ensures that a property does not violate fire and public health codes or pose a threat to public safety or neighboring properties. Marvin cited both Troy and Newburgh, New York, as having such vacant property inspection fees in their codes.

Pictured here: The Tudor-style empty store at the corner of Pondfield Road and Garden Avenue.

Photo by N. Bower{jcomments off}