  Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1413 Registered: 10-2003 |
Wouldn't a comprehensive program that fines and eventually takes over properties that are not cared for in the city, if run correctly, be a potential cash positive operation that would fund itself while cleaning up the city? A number of buildings along Jefferson on the far-east side come to mind... and much of the Altar to Connor area... and much of the rest of the city. I know that something like this exists at some level but it doesn't appear to be as comprehensive or properly administered as I would envision. | ||
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert Post Number: 397 Registered: 11-2007 |
I doubt it would be cash-positive in the short term, especially if you actually tried to clean up the places you took over. If you take them over, they stop paying property taxes. However, the net cost might be low enough to be worth doing anyway. | ||
Jasoncw Member Username: Jasoncw Post Number: 560 Registered: 07-2005 |
They already have it, but they don't really have the leverage to collect on all of the fines, and after they take over the properties no one wants to buy them anyway. | ||
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies Post Number: 3067 Registered: 10-2003 |
And what the hell is the city going to do with the buildings? It can't get rid of the thousands of buildings and land parcels it has already acquired through tax foreclosure. It can't afford to rehab them. If it puts them back on the market in their current state they will end up in the hands of speculators. If you restrict who you sell them to and what you can do with the properties too much, even the legitimate developers will avoid it at any cost. It is also very hard to take property for any reason other than tax foreclosure and imminent domain. This country aggressively protects property owners rights. It would take major changes to our laws to enable this and I can't see any property owner backing the changes. | ||
Raptor56 Member Username: Raptor56 Post Number: 495 Registered: 05-2007 |
If the owner is not paying to keep up his/her building, he's not going to pay any city imposed fines, unless maybe there is a reasonable threat of jail time, which currently there is not. If there was a real risk of jail time, the Broderick Tower and the train station would not be in the current condition they are in, or at the very least, their affluent owners would not be living in their nice houses right now. Even if the city puts a lien on the property for unpaid fines, odds are they would drop the fines if there was some hint of redevelopment, so no money gained. Once the City does take over the property, it's generally in such bad shape that no one wants to purchase and develop it. Consequently, you have oodles of city owned property just sitting there either rotting or as demolished vacant land. Either way, until someone buys this property, it is not contributing to the tax rolls or city income statement. In fact the property has a negative income value because the city has to pay for bare bones maintenance (security, crumbling debris protection for pedestrians, cut the lawn when it gets a couple feet high, etc). At least if the property is in the hands of a deadbeat owner, the city is not responsible for property liability, and, as a result, does not have to pay for the upkeep. There really needs to be more stringent blight policies in Detroit to start reversing the current state of urban decay. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1415 Registered: 10-2003 |
Raptor, I think that we are on the same page. So, what could legally be introduced as an extremely punitive blight control law? Let me give you an example: I have a neighbor in GP who has essentially left town for Chicago. They haven't been maintaining the house. GPF sent them several notices notifying them that they were going to have to "fix their roof" or the city would fix it and put it on their tax bill... the city eventually did just that. Then the neighbor was letting the grass grow without anyone cutting the lawn....similar situation....GPF comes in and cuts the lawn and bills the absent homeowner. Eventually, we expect that the city or the bank will own this house. The city will get paid back either way and the neighborhood doesn't look like a piece of crap in the interim... thereby keeping us all happy and keeping our home values up. Why couldn't this be done in Detroit? | ||
Digitalvision Member Username: Digitalvision Post Number: 1309 Registered: 11-2003 |
It can't be done in Detroit because that house in GPF is worth way more than most of the land in the city is. If you get a couple thousand bucks for the property, it's not financially feasible. Most of Detroit's property in the state we're talking about is close to worthless in the current market, if not a liability. There was a previous thread about demand - there is almost none in those neighborhoods, or most of Detroit for that matter. In Grosse Pointe, the land alone is worth enough to cover the costs of what the city did, regardless of the house you stick on it. The most stringent anti-blight policies aren't going to correct the core issues that create blight on this scale. The government would be much wiser to spend that money on those core issues than getting even deeper into the real estate game than they already are. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1416 Registered: 10-2003 |
so what are those policies that you are recommending? | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 1833 Registered: 03-2008 |
It will continue to take more than the city government to eliminate the blight, and most other problems. I'm thinking that system was designed to maintain, not rebuild. It was also designed to move slow, for the benefit of the people. It's hard enough to even fix the simplest things, like getting it to run efficiently for a city less than half it's original size. I don't know the answer that will create a quick fix. The only ones I see are very slow moving. If you find one that moves faster, let us all know! Just make sure you keep moving forward... (and keep in mind, that sometimes, the way forward is in fact, the way backward). | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 91 Registered: 07-2008 |
Two words: Land Bank http://www.thelandbank.org/ | ||
Border5150 Member Username: Border5150 Post Number: 251 Registered: 03-2004 |
If the homes/buildings are next to worthless or a liability, couldn't the city take posession, raze said house/building and sell off the land - to somehting like that Land Bank idea ? Presuming the land is worth more than the shitty building on it. I know, razing the vacant homes & buildings in the city would be astronomically expensive, but what other options are there, really? | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5390 Registered: 02-2005 |
Funny that you mention E. Jefferson-- aren't major streetscape upgrades in the works on the very stretch you mention? The City likes to update streetscapes as a means for making a strip more desirable...sometimes it really doesn't make sense, but there is a nice case to be made for E. Jefferson. From my long past experience there, even that part of Jefferson is getting better. Slowly and surely there have been some more tenants, especially in some of the buildings on the south side closer to Alter. You just have to wait for the demand. Tearing down the buildings is costly, a waste of resources, aesthetically more damaging then having an abandoned storefront, and prohibitive to the fostering of new small business. Why? If you tear it down it becomes a parking lot or greenfield that will probably sit around a long time until a strip mall developer or national-chain looking to build a stand-alone outlet (think: McD's, KFC, or Wendy's) comes along. If you leave the current building, which is almost worthless in this current market, you have decent hopes of a low or mid-level investor coming along, putting in a few $$ to clean up the space, and offering space for cheap, which will enable local startup businesses to move in. We've already seen that on some parts of Jefferson that haven't been leveled for strip malls. Once those buildings have seen updates and a tax-paying owner and his tenants move in, it will gain value-- all that gain is for that wise investor to reap, and for the City to enjoy in the form of increasing tax revenue that was previously nonexistant. Furthermore, it's bound to happen sooner than a national chain would come in a build on [ANOTHER] empty lot. The market is pretty much satiated in terms of fast food anyway-- you can only have so much. Empty land and abandoned buildings are both anything but a commodity in Detroit right now, but we're getting to the point where there's a ton of empty land, and fewer and fewer of our unique old buildings. Those buildings are more of a commodity, and should thus be left in place whenever they aren't actively endangering people. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1418 Registered: 10-2003 |
Izzy, Thank you. The landbank was the program that I had heard about and I understand that both Wayne County and the city have land banks (I think). If I remember correctly , the city's works less effectively than the county's. It would seem that this is the sort of thing that Mayor Cockrell should be accelerating. Mack, I am not suggesting tearing down some of those buildings on that stretch. I am suggesting taking them out of the hands of folks like Burgess (I think that's his name) and handing them over to someone who will put $ into the fix up. The tree growing out of the Vanity Ballroom's roof doesn't say much for the potential structural integrity under the present owner. | ||
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw Post Number: 5391 Registered: 02-2005 |
Agreed-- it's just a matter of how. The city can only apply laws that are on the books, and even at that, it's unclear how they can actually seize the property and give it to another person. We get into sketchy territory there. To me, it's a matter of incentives. Piling fines on a building owner will only delay the time that he re-invests in the building...remember, he owns low-value building in an area with little demand. However, the threat of fines or the presence of a tax incentive for fixing things up will encourage that activity, and encourage him to more actively find a tenant. | ||
Raptor56 Member Username: Raptor56 Post Number: 503 Registered: 05-2007 |
One other thing to keep in mind when levying fines and tax liens: Just because you have a lien and are owed back taxes/fines, doesn't mean you are going to recoup those dollars when the property sells. Case in point, I'm the Treasurer for a Condo Association. When someone stops paying their monthly association dues, we levy fines every month and put a lien on the property. If the property sells via the open market, we recoup or money. However, if the property goes into foreclosure and is taken over by the bank, the bank doesn't recognize the back debt and generally refuses to pay anything the previous owner owed. You can suit the bank for this money, but it's long and costly. Generally you are only going to recoup any fees/fines imposed after the bank takes over, and even then, you generally are not going to get your money until the property sells. The other situation you don't want to get into is bankruptcy. If someone files for bankruptcy, you can kiss any fines or back money goodbye, regardless of liens. You then have to start at 0 again and begin to asses the fines to whoever the new property owner is, which could be the back, or in some cases, the city. If it's the City, you're back to my point above regarding the cost of basic maintenance and liability. | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 94 Registered: 07-2008 |
I.M. You are correct, the county and the city of Detroit both have thier separate land banks. Unfortunately the state legislation has been in effect for over 5 years and the city council just this summer finally decided to enact one. Legislation gives every county in the state and the city of Detroit the power to enact a land bank. I get a little shaky when trying to explain this but I'm going to try my best. The land bank is controlled by the Treasurer. It gives them the power to gain control of properties through delinquent taxes. Once in the land bank the Treasurer department has the ability to sell, give, or do what they please with the property. One way Flint has been cleaning up the city is simply by offering adjacent blighted lots to homeowners as an enlarged yard. If the neighbor agrees then they will get the land for $1 as long as they agree to demo the building, upkeep the land and of course put the land back on the tax rolls. Other incentives for the land bank are the brownfield credits associated with them. Every single property in a land bank gets brownfield credits no matter how clean the property is. Making it cheaper to sell of nicer properties and easier to rehab older blighted properties. The other perk of the land bank is some how (I can't remember how this works) it is completely self sustaining and sufficient. Meaning it doesn't take any money to start or maintain one. This includes paying the wages for the additional employees that work on it. Please correct me if anyone sees that I may have gotten something wrong or twisted. I would hope that Detroit in the near future gets this tool up and running. As much as I hate to see buildings demolished, we need to face the facts that Detroit is still losing population and density. Plus, Flint has shown us that since the land bank has been started, crime rates have gone down, blight has been decrease, property values have gone up and major historical buildings have been rehabbed. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1422 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thanks for the education folks. Izzy, that seems like such a huge opportunity as you describe it to make significant change happen in the city. Hopefully K. Cockrell can make this happen at an accelerated pace. | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 224 Registered: 08-2008 |
The city of Detroit takes over derelict buildings so that they may become derelictER, or maybe, derelictEST. Remember the 'Abandoned by Neglect' campaign downtown many years ago? It still applies. With the city you're damned if you do and damned if you' don't. | ||
Izzyindetroit Member Username: Izzyindetroit Post Number: 106 Registered: 07-2008 |
You know 1KD you have a point. The major down side to Genessee's land bank is that it is becoming known as Flint's number one slum lord. This is because of all the properties that they have picked up but not been able to upkeep. However, I would much rather have the county or city own the land rather than a property investor in New York or LA who at the end of the day doens't give a shit unless they are making a profit. | ||
1kielsondrive Member Username: 1kielsondrive Post Number: 229 Registered: 08-2008 |
Izzy, you make good points also. But if there are two entities that don't give a s*@t about you, what difference does it make who's not giving a s+#t about you? You're still stuck in a s#@*y place. Government and corporate bureaucracies are often the same. You're still stuck in a s@+*#y place. No one is responsible, no one wants to be responsible. No one takes action, no one wants to take action. Inertia resulting in failure. | ||
Sumas Member Username: Sumas Post Number: 297 Registered: 01-2008 |
Hey, the comment about East Jefferson is unfair. As a child, my mom took us to that business district for glasses, doctors, clothes etc. In the seventies through to the turn of this century, the decline was pretty obvious. In the last decade, an organization called JEBA (Jefferson East Business Association) has made major strides in improving facades, enlisting new business, historic reclamation and city scape improvements. Some wins/some losses. These programs are grant funded and wheels do turn slow. Another org. that has contributed is Creekside Community Development. The Village of Fairview Historical Society has also contributed to re-instating civic pride. Many projects are/have been in the works. Slum landlords are being addressed. Our city has been morally and financially bankrupt but its citizens and our organizational commitments are not. Please give credit to multiple non profit organizations who really do make a difference city wide. Blight busters on the west side is another great example. South West Environmental Vision is another, Greening of Detroit also deserves a mention. One developer should also be mentioned, Michael Curis. He has many successful east area projects and is also a big contributor to east area out- reach projects. |
