It's all about creating the appearance of wasted effort on the side of the taggers, possibly sprinkled with a little political nudging to stop highlighting that specific bit of failure.
I hate tagging done in places where people obviously care about the building the walls are part of, but in this case it's hard not to see this as a public service:
“Look at this hubris. Hard to ignore now isn't it? A huge newly built tower abandoned for all intents and purposes. It's a waste of space, money, and it raises questions about sustainability and fairness.”
Waste of space: Not really? The plot of land the building is on is ~ 1/3rd of an acre. Immediately adjacent to it are multiple street level-only parking lots that have a larger footprint. I guess providing parking to 60 cars is more useful than an empty building, but not by much, especially considering the building will probably be rehabbed eventually. For reference the LACC 1 block away has parking for 6000 cars, and done in a reasonable, space-efficient manner (multilevel underground parking).
Waste of money: Whose money? The developers? Sure. But it isn't like random tax paying citizens of LA had any kind of stake in it.
Is "abandoned" the narrative speak for a essentially bank owned real estate that's sitting in bankruptcy court somewhere? The premise this is a billion dollar asset that no one wants is patently asinine.
Is there anyone currently residing in it? If the reason that it is disused is merely some bureaucratic snafu, then that actually feels even more dystopian than some run-of-the-mill abandonment.
> currently residing in it?
> run-of-the-mill abandonment
That's a lovely way to try to frame the narrative, take that all the way through and every vacation home or place for sale/ready is "abandoned" and therefore morally acceptable for someone to take. Double plus good.
Don't let the fact the Oceanwide lot alone being worth $100m plus stop though, though. Definitely abandoned, no one likes money.
> Given that homelessness is at record highs, I wouldn't worry too much about those with more homes than they can use [..]
Well, apart from that homelessness is not just a housing problem[0], and that homeless people in Western countries are substantially more likely to have alcohol and drug dependence than the age-matched general population in those countries, and the prevalences of psychotic illnesses and personality disorders are higher.[1]
Of course there is the idea of "housing first"[2], 'the idea [to] help people find permanent housing right away, without conditioning this housing on sobriety, mental health treatment, employment, or anything else'.
As a mentally ill homeless person myself, I don’t doubt that there is some connection. What I would question is if the current increase in homelessness corresponds to an increase in mental illness.
All fun and games till they come for your stuff, with the same argument.
As someone with a first hand experience in that, I find it extremely peculiar these arguments are almost elusively made by 30 something year old white kids that grew up in upper middle class US suburbs.
You're not exactly over the target, but it is a bit novel to see an acknowledgement of white privilege mixed in with what is more traditionally a conservative concern about property.
the vast majority of minority communities (in the USA) are in fact conservative on property crime and law an order. They also support increased law enforcement (they just don't want cops to be less racist).
Most modern disestablishmentarian movements simply exploit minorities and claim to speak for them, but dont actually represent their views.
I hate tagging done in places where people obviously care about the building the walls are part of, but in this case it's hard not to see this as a public service:
“Look at this hubris. Hard to ignore now isn't it? A huge newly built tower abandoned for all intents and purposes. It's a waste of space, money, and it raises questions about sustainability and fairness.”