Thanks for your response. I took note about the part where you say that the bank can’t lower the price enough to sell that languishing property across the street from you. That is very interesting.
That says to me that it’s more important for the bank to hold onto the property than the costs of taxes and utilities. That says that the bank is so confident of their position, they must be counting on some government subsidy that let’s them hang onto it, that they don’t have to do a distress sale.
I think that’s what we need to change. The laws are so pro-creditor, that they can just sit on the property and wait rather than sell it at a price that the market will bear.