I suspect the answer is often in the tax code. I know nothing about CA, so I won’t comment on the situation there in Burbank, but in Manhattan’s Village (East and West), Lower East Side, and North Brooklyn the issue is that landlords can write off the “lost income” from their fictitious inflated rent demands to offset the actual; income from paying tenants. So it’s actually advantageous for CBRE, Croman, Icon, etc. to have a storefront sit empty for 2-3 years or more with a requested rent of $15,000 a month. And then point to this as to why they are charging another tenant $12,000 for their renewal (“such a bargain given market rates”). This is also compounded by a lack of rent control or lease rights for commercial tenants.
On the other hand, in my second home of Wellington, NZ, they obviously do something right as small shops, restaurants, and cafes thrive for decades. I’ve yet to discover whether this is due to advantageous tax codes, less general assholery in the Wellington business community, local support for small businesses, legal commercial tenant protections - or a combination of all of these. And this is in the face of a historic office space shortage and rocketing house prices (although RIP Matterhorn, you are missed).
