Er ... and that's a bad thing because?

From today's FT letters:

So far as business premises are concerned, [The Chancellor] should have reinstated empty rate relief to its previous level so developers can invest in much needed new schemes rather than spending money to maintain properties they struggle to find tenants for – or worse still, demolishing newly built and usable premises simply because a tenant cannot be found immediately.

Robert McNally, Chair, Property and Construction Committee, London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, London EC4

Wot?

They have money to spend on new schemes (for whom they presumably can find tenants) but will demolish these if no new tenant can be found immediately? And they have money for building and demolishing new schemes but none to prevent existing properties falling in to disrepair? Does the bank waive the interest when a property is standing empty? Similarly, a landowner makes a windfall gain when planning permission is granted (however long ago), is it not fair for the council to claw a bit of that uplift back in tax, whether the landowner can be bothered to actually fulfil his side of the bargain? Is he not aware how badly derelict buildings (or indeed eternal building sites) impact on surrounding properties?

As the Land Value Taxers point out, it is stupid to tax buildings, it should only be the site value (or the market value of the planning permission, same thing) that should be taxed, but bloody hell, does that letter make the slightest bit of sense?