> That would just devalue the surrounding property even more.

Why do you think that's the case? I'm sure it would make the entire city seem like a riskier investment at first, but it seems like in the medium term it would help address the situation described in the article.

By "devalue" you mean "lower the price of" which... seems fine? Useful assets being cheaper is a good thing.

As long as you're not the owner of said asset.

Does your house stop being a house if the price goes down?

Does your car drive worse if no one will buy it?

I'm not saying it doesn't suck to overpay for something, but you can't expect too much pity when you lose money speculating.

yes, this entire discussion is about a policy which might be good for communities but not necessarily for real estate speculators who keep storefronts in those communities empty

Still doesn't matter to you unless you're trying to sell it.

Or you think the best way to deal with people getting scammed, is to make sure everyone gets scammed, to avoid being unfair to the initial victims of the scam. For example if Billy put $200 in a Ponzi scheme we should tax everyone else $200 to make it fair.