Originally Posted by
rrz518
It's likely far more expensive to close than remain open, even with drastic low occupancy....meaning the risk of vandalism, arson, damage due to water intrusion from leaks, etc. would in many cases outweigh the labor to keep the buildings inspected, functioning and viable.
This is off for two reasons. First you're assuming that closure means they're ceasing all maintenance. That's not a reasonable assumption. The second, and more important consideration is that payroll and debt service are likely their biggest expenses by a substantial margin. Ownership can't stop paying debt (at least not without losing the property), but they can cut payroll, so that's the single most effective thing they can do to stop the bleeding in the current environment. Nonetheless, without cash flow, it's safe to assume that many hotels which close will shortly be unable to service their debt, and will never reopen, at least not under current ownership.
Anyone who thinks this is just a temporary blip and that things will shortly return to normal is in complete denial.