The Michigan Supreme Court will hear a dispute over the legality of using a drone to take pictures of a property accused of violating a zoning ordinance and creating a nuisance with cars and other salvaged material.
To view the article, please click here.
A recent article discusses one community’s initiatives to “injecting new life into narrow, vacant lots brought about by blighted-structures removal”.
Several approaches are referenced, including;
- the topic must remain a regular item on council meeting agendas.
- arranging for construction professionals to present their thoughts on how the city might best proceed
- couple of meetings for city residents to express their opinions and, even, their concerns
- appointment of a couple of city residents to serve as liaisons between the council and the general community
- holding a builders’ fair
- tackling the question and existing uncertainty about whether building homes on narrow lots can be a profitable venture
- recruiting builders to “rehab” blighted homes for which rehabilitation remains a possible option because of their condition
To view the article, please click here.
In a recent Op-Ed for the Anchorage Daily News, Sam Spiegelman, attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation provides an update on SB 77.
In the article he advocates that “the term “blight” must be precisely defined, and narrowly applied.”
Spiegelman discuss the original Senate Bill, the revamped House Bill and provides a comparison to Washington and Georgia law.
“While truly blighted properties — ones that are vectors for disease, crime, and other public dangers — can be of real concern, current nuisance laws empower local governments in Alaska to force owners to fix them. Officials could use more weapons to combat blight, but blanket permission to designate anything they wish as such is simply too great a power to entrust in the hands of municipal bureaucrats.”
To view the Op-Ed, please click here.
At the risk of stating the obvious, data is extremely valuable. However as we all know some data is more valuable than others.
Many communities that struggle with vacant properties conduct “windshield surveys” or actual parcel by parcel inspections. The general purpose of this inventory and assessment is typically to “provide important data that will assist in identifying and prioritizing properties for rehabilitation, lead abatement, code violations, demolition and other pressing needs.”
Of course, one critical utilization of this data is as validation for state and federal funding to address the plague of vacant and abandoned properties.
However one point is always lacking from these assessments. It is a “snapshot in time”. Vacant properties are not static, they are constantly in flux due to many factors.
Vacant properties can be misidentified as vacant (i.e. exterior inspections indicates vacant however it is occupied), or if vacant they can be re-occupied. Some vacant properties can be rehabbed relatively quickly and re-occupied/sold while others languish. Some properties retain the same ownership, some are sold, often frequently.
This is demonstrated in the following quote from a report on the challenges facing Baltimore.
“Private developers demolished or rehabbed about 1,300 vacant properties last year, Ramos said, but another 1,100 became vacant.”
These assessments provide value, but if you are spending significant dollars on them, please maximize it.
A vacant property registry is a fluid tool that can can provide a more detailed overview of the inventory of vacant properties but also the ownership etc.. It can provide additional value as well. For example, some “occupied” properties are illegally occupied. Having the owner certify through a registry that the property is (and therefore should be) vacant is one way to approach the issue of squatters.
Most important of all, when its done correctly a registry is free!
A recent article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution discusses the intent of the City to broadcast on the city’s public TV channel the board meetings where property demolitions are discussed.
Though the article mentions the motivations behind this initiative, it can’t be coincidental that it comes soon after the report of “City tears down man’s Atlanta house after sending warnings to wrong address, he says”.
Additionally, the article provides a telling quote:
“We found that 92% of properties demolished by the city using the in rem proceedings were not registered in the vacant property registry,” Hagley said. “Some property owners may be unaware that their property has been referred to the in rem process.”
What does this really mean? What does this demonstrate?
Why were 92% not registered on the registry? It could simply be a case of negligent property owners who ignore property maintenance codes (causing the property to be deemed uninhabitable etc.) also ignoring the registration requirement.
However if it is like many other communities that have a registry, then it is a case of a community not maximizing an existing resource.
A registry will garner some level of compliance, even with minimal effort, but to truly maximize it, it needs dedicated attention.
Though a registry was designed to be a preventative tool, here at the latter stages of a property’s life it provides value.
Any chance of salvaging a property (and saving the municipality the demolition costs) requires earliest possible intervention. After a property has been condemned and the extra notification efforts are exerted, it is most likely too late.
“Some property owners may be unaware that their property has been referred to the in rem process.”
Broadcasting the hearings are a start, however fully maximizing the registry is the best way to assure owners are aware.
The best way to maximize the registry is to utilize the focus MuniReg provides.