A recent syndicated article being picked up by mainstream media outlets seem to portray the “so-called vacant property registration movement” in a negative light.
Couple of key points:
- “But what goes unsaid is that registrations are a source of revenue — sometimes a huge source — for cash-starved jurisdictions“.
Obviously revenue is enticing, but it is shortsighted.- It is difficult to justify exorbitant fees. As was raised in the recent lawsuit “It should be noted that these registration fees were for a program that did nothing more than compile a list of vacant properties and track the current owners,” the suit states.”
- Besides for the aforementioned legal risk, there is the reputational risk as well
Law.com: “Judge Renounces Towns’ ‘Zombie House’ Regulations as a Money Grab” - Even when registration fees are sensible, excessive penalties can lead to unwanted challenges like the creation of “perverse incentives”.
- “VPRO” was not designed to be a revenue generator. It is a “means to an end”, a tool to facilitate better and earlier communication and making code enforcement more efficient.
- Though it starts by discussing vacant property registrations in digresses to discuss rental and short term rental registries. Though similar, each has its own unique qualities.
“Unfortunately, “registration requirements change frequently,”, so there is value in uniformity. However, just as critical is to know what to replicate and what not to replicate, with the best approach being to collaborate with true experts like MuniReg.
Going at it alone can result in “confusing” and “convoluted” regulations that can be more trouble than its worth. - The good news however, is the article advocates for owners staying updated on registration laws, ensuring their vacant properties are maintained in accordance with specific local requirements and standards, and building relationships with the agencies that enforce local codes
To read the full article in the Miami Herald, please click here.