All of this studiously ignores the fact that occupied homes provide exactly the same tax revenue, the same property value, support the same budgets as those vacant homes. Yes, increased wear and tear comes with occupation. But you pretzel yourself to act like the people in the homes contribute nothing to the local economy to subsidize and account for this increased wear and tear.
Unoccupied homes don’t contribute a capita that’s not pretzel anything. The fact you don’t like rich people owning homes they don’t use or live in, doesn’t make them bad for prosperity just because you want them to be. Locaions with that phenomenon are some of the most prosperous in the world.
