I see this also, but I don’t get it. An empty building still costs a bunch of taxes and upkeep and still rapidly deteriorates without tenants looking after it. Aren’t these people hemorrhaging money? What do they have to show for it? My city actually handled a majority of the rent so a business could revitalize a large-ish property that had been empty for years. Of course it failed as soon as that deal ran out.
I think for businesses that own multiple properties, they can claim losses on vacant buildings to offset their taxes in other profitable ones.
As I've said elsewhere, when the economy improves it will be rented again.