Well, I'm gonna have to add the word decrepit to my discussion of what I call the "language of revitalization."
The solution here is investment.
From a blog entry:
Buildings or neighborhoods called dilapidated, run-down, blight, eyesores, nuisances, etc. are victims of disinvestment.
The solution is not demolition, but investment instead of disinvestment. And maintenance and/or rehabilitation is the proper response to neglect or demolition-by-neglect.
The bolded words are part of the language we use in discussing urban revitalization. And the way we use these words often leads to what I call our Blaming the Building rather than the real culprit, disinvestment.
Blaming the building encourages us to demolish buildings that suffer from disinvestment. The actor-disinvestor gets off scot-free.
The ultimate solution is investment, but the immediate solution would be for the owner to sell the property to someone who is willing to invest in and revitalize the property. I'm just amazed/distraught that so much great housing stock is sitting abandoned or in absolute disrepair. What are these owners thinking? Case in point: 824 I St. NE. It's a semi-detached rowhouse, which has a good size yard on the side, is very deep, and has more room in the back for parking or whatever. As far as I can tell, the house is basically being used for storage (windows in back are knocked out, etc). The house could be beautiful! The owner is apparently indifferent to the money that could be made by selling - I just wish I could understand why. Put another way, why hold onto the property and let it rot (i.e. decrease in value), when you could sell it for a pile of cash at no risk (i.e. "as is")? The mysteries of the real estate market.
One thing that can be done is to check and make sure that the owners are paying the right taxes on their property. Are they getting homestead deductions on abandoned property? Are they paying the abandoned property rate (I forget the technical name but these building should be paying a higher rate per $100.)
If you make it more expensive to hold onto and 'warehouse" this property, the owner will eventually sell. Check the tax rolls and report them to the tax office.
There was an article in the Post this morning about this (property owners receiving a homestead deduction on abandon properties). I've been reporting houses like this for years to the DC tax office, but they couldn't be bothered. An investigation of a property and assigning the proper designation takes too much time for the assessment office. It's just not a good ROI for them.
I've had bad luck trying to get them to do anything about vacant properties being taxed at the wrong rates, but I try anyway. The thing about this house is that, while the wood is probably badly rotted, the bricks look fine & sturdy. Possibly a gut job, but it doesn't look loke a tear down.
6 comments:
Well, I'm gonna have to add the word decrepit to my discussion of what I call the "language of revitalization."
The solution here is investment.
From a blog entry:
Buildings or neighborhoods called dilapidated, run-down, blight, eyesores, nuisances, etc. are victims of disinvestment.
The solution is not demolition, but investment instead of disinvestment. And maintenance and/or rehabilitation is the proper response to neglect or demolition-by-neglect.
The bolded words are part of the language we use in discussing urban revitalization. And the way we use these words often leads to what I call our Blaming the Building rather than the real culprit, disinvestment.
Blaming the building encourages us to demolish buildings that suffer from disinvestment. The actor-disinvestor gets off scot-free.
The ultimate solution is investment, but the immediate solution would be for the owner to sell the property to someone who is willing to invest in and revitalize the property. I'm just amazed/distraught that so much great housing stock is sitting abandoned or in absolute disrepair. What are these owners thinking? Case in point: 824 I St. NE. It's a semi-detached rowhouse, which has a good size yard on the side, is very deep, and has more room in the back for parking or whatever. As far as I can tell, the house is basically being used for storage (windows in back are knocked out, etc). The house could be beautiful! The owner is apparently indifferent to the money that could be made by selling - I just wish I could understand why. Put another way, why hold onto the property and let it rot (i.e. decrease in value), when you could sell it for a pile of cash at no risk (i.e. "as is")? The mysteries of the real estate market.
One thing that can be done is to check and make sure that the owners are paying the right taxes on their property. Are they getting homestead deductions on abandoned property? Are they paying the abandoned property rate (I forget the technical name but these building should be paying a higher rate per $100.)
If you make it more expensive to hold onto and 'warehouse" this property, the owner will eventually sell. Check the tax rolls and report them to the tax office.
There was an article in the Post this morning about this (property owners receiving a homestead deduction on abandon properties). I've been reporting houses like this for years to the DC tax office, but they couldn't be bothered. An investigation of a property and assigning the proper designation takes too much time for the assessment office. It's just not a good ROI for them.
I agree with you.
Ever since seeing the impact in Cleveland on a tour during the Nat. Trust for Historic Preservation conference in 2002, I am a fan of receivership to abate nuisance properties. It's not in our law here. See this blog entry for more about it: Blaming the building in Baltimore -- when your tool is a gun, you think only about shooting
I've had bad luck trying to get them to do anything about vacant properties being taxed at the wrong rates, but I try anyway. The thing about this house is that, while the wood is probably badly rotted, the bricks look fine & sturdy. Possibly a gut job, but it doesn't look loke a tear down.
Post a Comment