Over the last half century, many of the older cities in America have built up a substantial inventory of abandoned buildings. This problem is clearly worst in Detroit where the population has declined by roughly 60%. Other large cities, however, share the problem. One or two houses or stores in an area will be abandoned, those buildings become centers of urban decay and crime, and then larger areas around the abandoned building fall into the morass of decay.
A good example of this problem is the city of Philadelphia. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 abandoned buildings in that city (depending on whose statistics one accepts). These properties no longer generate tax revenues, are havens for drug users and other criminals and destroy the value of other properties in the neighborhood, thus increasing urban poverty. Right now, the accepted method for dealing with these empty buildings is for the city to take them over through legal process and then, after clearing the title, to sell them on the market at auction. In each of the last few years, Philadelphia has sold between 150 and 200 buildings in this way. Clearly, the current method put in place by the liberal city government is not going to end the problem. Even with no additional abandonments, it would take two centuries to get rid of all the abandoned properties in Philadelphia under the current practices.
A conservative plan to combat urban poverty and decay would be to allow individual initiative to be used to reverse the decline of these properties. It would not be all that difficult to carry out. Here are the steps to be followed:
1. Buildings in arrears on property taxes would be identified by the local government.
2. Building owners would be notified and given one year or some other shorter time period to bring the taxes current.
3. Uninhabited properties that are still delinquent in tax payments after a year would be put up for auction with the minimum bid being the amount of unpaid taxes plus interest and costs. Sales made in these auctions would be final 30 days after the auction. This would give the owners one last chance to retrieve the property from the sale.
4. Any property for which no qualified bids are received would become property of the local government 30 days after the date of the auction.
5. The city would then offer the properties free of charge to qualified applicants. (Qualified applicants would be all legal residents who have not received any other property under this or similar programs.) In exchange for the property, the applicant would agree to bring the building back up to code standards, to live in the building for at least five years, and to pay the property taxes on a current basis during that time. Taxes would be set at only 25% of the prior level during that five year period. Applicants would also be required to keep the property free of criminal activities during the five years.
6. If the applicant met these requirements, then at the end of the five years, the local government would transfer title to the property.
The program described above is far from unique. Homesteading has been used many times previously in the USA. Moving the program to urban areas has multiple benefits. First of all, it gives people with no financial assets the chance to use their own work as a means to acquire a home of their own. Second, these home owners will be much more interested in keeping the neighborhood (and their property) in good repair and safe. Third, instead of having the housing stock of a city declining, the program could actually move towards a return of higher population. The cities where the plan is tried will get higher tax revenues from properties which previously were nothing but a drain on the treasury.
So, this is a program that has little or not cost to the government associated with it while at the same time it has the chance to create significant wealth for many poor folks.
A good example of this problem is the city of Philadelphia. There are between 40,000 and 50,000 abandoned buildings in that city (depending on whose statistics one accepts). These properties no longer generate tax revenues, are havens for drug users and other criminals and destroy the value of other properties in the neighborhood, thus increasing urban poverty. Right now, the accepted method for dealing with these empty buildings is for the city to take them over through legal process and then, after clearing the title, to sell them on the market at auction. In each of the last few years, Philadelphia has sold between 150 and 200 buildings in this way. Clearly, the current method put in place by the liberal city government is not going to end the problem. Even with no additional abandonments, it would take two centuries to get rid of all the abandoned properties in Philadelphia under the current practices.
A conservative plan to combat urban poverty and decay would be to allow individual initiative to be used to reverse the decline of these properties. It would not be all that difficult to carry out. Here are the steps to be followed:
1. Buildings in arrears on property taxes would be identified by the local government.
2. Building owners would be notified and given one year or some other shorter time period to bring the taxes current.
3. Uninhabited properties that are still delinquent in tax payments after a year would be put up for auction with the minimum bid being the amount of unpaid taxes plus interest and costs. Sales made in these auctions would be final 30 days after the auction. This would give the owners one last chance to retrieve the property from the sale.
4. Any property for which no qualified bids are received would become property of the local government 30 days after the date of the auction.
5. The city would then offer the properties free of charge to qualified applicants. (Qualified applicants would be all legal residents who have not received any other property under this or similar programs.) In exchange for the property, the applicant would agree to bring the building back up to code standards, to live in the building for at least five years, and to pay the property taxes on a current basis during that time. Taxes would be set at only 25% of the prior level during that five year period. Applicants would also be required to keep the property free of criminal activities during the five years.
6. If the applicant met these requirements, then at the end of the five years, the local government would transfer title to the property.
The program described above is far from unique. Homesteading has been used many times previously in the USA. Moving the program to urban areas has multiple benefits. First of all, it gives people with no financial assets the chance to use their own work as a means to acquire a home of their own. Second, these home owners will be much more interested in keeping the neighborhood (and their property) in good repair and safe. Third, instead of having the housing stock of a city declining, the program could actually move towards a return of higher population. The cities where the plan is tried will get higher tax revenues from properties which previously were nothing but a drain on the treasury.
So, this is a program that has little or not cost to the government associated with it while at the same time it has the chance to create significant wealth for many poor folks.
2 comments:
Where does the money come from to bring the blgs. back to inhabitable & meet code?
Fastcarken: In my view, the money to bring the buildings back would come from the new residents. This should work for a few reasons. First, since there are so many abandoned buildings, the ones chosen for the program would be the ones that need the least work. Second, while it may be hard to get a mortgage sufficient to both buy and repair the homes, the amount needed to borrow would be much lower if the home were free. Third, groups like Habitat for Humanity could help with the work and make a meaningful difference. The point is that the new residents need to do this on their own, not with government money.
Post a Comment