Amnesty proposal for nuisance properties?
It sounds like an interesting suggestion that might have a small impact on helping the City to collect some of the $4.1 million billed to current and former property owners from the past two years as reported in the Blade. The tax amnesty program was successful, yet, it’s hard to ignore that this is a bit different of a scenario as is pointed out:
The low collection rate is because of difficulty finding property owners, Ms. Bond said.
Even if the city does locate the owner and obtains a court order to pay up, it’s still easy for a reluctant property owner to claim he has no money.
Considering the City has only collected $35,000 in the past two years, if they can actually find the people that owe the money having some type of a percentage or sliding fee scale would be better than collecting nothing. I’m just not sure given the typical nuisance situation how many would be found to make this something that would have a huge impact. That said, a small increase is better than the current system.
The other side of this issue is that if the person doesn’t have the money to repair the home to make it no longer be a nuisance it stands to reason they aren’t going to have the money to pay for the demolition or other charges. There are very few programs out there that actually offer real assistance. Most of the community organizations that are out there are facing a funding crunch.
Difficulty finding the owners, huh…
This shot shows a vacant lot that looks more like a meadow, than a city lot. Notice the vacant and boarded op house in the corner.
The lot is owned by the city of Toledo, according to Aries.
Vacant lot with grass over grown
And the boarded up house at 426 Aracadia is owned by a city resident, per Aries.
The problems seems to be that there are more vacant and abandoned house than the city can keep up with and even inventory.
And while the Mayor and some former council members spent so much time denying the problem, instead of addressing the problem.
Maybe its time for another study and committee to review and discuss the problem, which is why are people leaving the city and abandoning the houses.
Studies and committee meetings are great at showing us the concern, now if there was some action.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:08 am“Maybe its time for another study and committee to review and discuss the problem, which is why are people leaving the city and abandoning the houses.”
Hmmmmm…high city taxes, reduced city services, low quality city services, high crime rates, the gang problem, the drug dealer infestation, whores working in the open all over Broadway, a police force with more focus on traffic fine revenue than crime, fees for sewer drainage, fees for trash, fees billed to insurance companies for accident response, every city service with increased or, invented fees (that used to be paid via taxes) , carry-out fees, vacant home fees, ozone action day fuel fees, a city government that declares areas “blighted” in order to lower the costs of land it wants, a mayor who’s projects are all glitter and glam and expense without substance, streets that make the lunar surface look smooth.
There is a start for any “study” the city would conduct and, I’ve offered this list for free instead of charging a “consulting” fee of 80k as the city leadership would pay for.
Why are people willing to just up and leave a property that selling could put money in their pocket? The reasons above are enough. But, who could blame anyone for knowing upfront that tossing 30k in renovations into a house that they can’t guard 24/7 from the thieves in this city and losing EVERYTHING as opposed to just cutting the loss and walking away?
A co-worker of mine bought a house to rehab in Toledo. Less than 24 hours after it was finnished, it was stripped of plumbing, the furnace, the water heater and aluminum siding.
40k in investment down the shitter for a house that is no longer sellable while he is still responsible for the loan. Not only that, the city came by and left notice that the house was a “public nuisance” and a 2 page list of renovations that had to be remedied within 30 days or, the house would be boarded up and / or demolished!
So 50k for the property, 40k in renovations and then after being ripped off, the choice is…
“A” spend another 25k on a property that has already cost him 90k in an area where houses only sell for 55 at the very best…AND get it all done within 30 days or, have the city make the property worth even less!
Or, “B”…wash hands of entire mess and move to a respectable city!
Carty’s “vacant home registry” is just another knee-jerk reaction to a problem that requires a sound though process in devising a solution.
“…We’ll just charge a fee…” ISN’T the answer and is nothing more than the typical Toledo city government’s shortcut to thinking!
Keep beating the property owners over the head with every dumb scheme to fleece them out of their money and investment and, then stand around scratching your heads wondering where they all went when the well runs even more dry.
…nothing a few more traffic cameras, fees, flowers, bikepaths and, Toledo pride signs can’t cover up eh?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:45 amDear -Sepp:
A word of advice to your co-worker (perhaps a too little, too late): insurance!
What you failed to mention in your laundry list response as to why people are leaving our city was “too many people willing to complain, whine and demand change and safety in our neighbhorhoods and not enough willing to actually TAKE ACTION to create the change needed.”
And as for the “vacant home registry”. . . “just charge a fee” comment, your co-worker would have been exempt. Just read the legislation. That’s all you have to do to understand it. Just read it.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pmWhy make the law at all? Anyone who is going to abandon a property isn’t going to go register and pay before leaving!
And, why should I have to prove anything to the city (renovations, renting, etc) regarding my PRIVATE property?
As for “taking action”, what do you suggest? Buy my own asphalt and do the street repairs myself? Form a vigilante group to stop crime?
Quite a few of us HAVE tried to communicate concerns to our district council members and at-large members to no avail and most often to never even receive acknowlegement that they’ve heard us.
I’ve attended council meetings and saw firsthand the disorganization and, lack of any attention being paid to topics on the table while just rubberstamping a “YEA” vote when it was obvious that the councilmember hadn’t even heard what the vote was for!
I grew up in Toledo and I have always loved Toledo…it’s home. But, I can look realisticly at the big picture and see that the leadership’s egos have siezed the wheel and put Toledo’s potential in the trunk.
I also have an investment in Toledo…a house. For every pothole, mayoral blunder, fee, criminal act and, business that decides to flee to the ‘burbs, my return on this investment gets smaller.
I have a right to be angry and pitch a bitch about it. Carty’s “results” are all hollow and nothing more than window dressing and stage props.
Take a look at our neighboring community’s city governments and see how they conduct business. Go sit in on a council meeting in Perrysburg, Maumee or, Sylvania. Then go watch a Toledo city council meeting and see why residents and businesses are flocking to them.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:17 pmV, how is the co-worker exempt if he doesn’t put the house up for sale because it’s been stripped and there’s already too much money invested in renovations? If it’s empty, not being worked on and not up for sale, it’s deemed a problem by the city even if the owner is maintaining the property. Telling that person to get insurance is a glib solution. Ever try to get insurance for a vacant house? And if you’ve already had a serious loss there, how much do you think it would cost to get coverage now? Just get the city off the homeowners’ backs and go after the real offenders. This legislation is exactly what the city does NOT need.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pmLily,
Under Sepp’s scenario, co-worker purchased house and was renovating house = exemption. Co-worker still has 90 days after he abandons project due to vandalism, allows house to fall deeper into ruin before becoming subject to legislation.
And as for insurance being a glib solution. . .c’mon! What lending institution are you aware of that would actually give a loan secured by uninsured property? And if a person or company is seriously considering investing in property that will take a while to renovate, but can’t afford the higher premiums charged for uninhabited dwellings, then they can’t affort the investment in the first place.
I challenge you to propose an alternative workable solution to the problem of individuals/companies purchasing properties in neighborhoods only to allow them to remain perpetually vacant, rot and diminish the value of all the other surrounding properties.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:20 amV, why do you assume that there’s a lending institution involved in all the properties that will be subject to this legislation? I have multiple properties — all paid for — some of which carry a higher insurance premium because they’re vacant. They’re well taken care of and there is zero reason for the city to concern itself with the properties, treating them as if they’re in disrepair or a problem to the city in any way. They aren’t. But I will be punished regardless, forced to pay a fee to the city because I am not renovating the homes (they don’t need renovation) and not putting them up for sale (which is my right; the city should not be telling me I have to rent them or sell them, or else I have to fork over dough). I’m not the one who’s letting a neighborhood go to ruin, I’m not letting drug dealers and whores take over the property, I’m not boarding up the windows or leaving the grass uncut. I’m actually part of the stability of the neighborhood, but I’m still going to be included on the same list with those who are the problem. There is no way that’s fair. I’m struggling enough financially, and do not need the added burden the city wants to place on me because of the actions, or inaction, of other property owners. And in the process, the city will actually be putting my properties at risk of vandalism and theft with that incredibly stupid list idea. It’s not my fault the city has failed to keep our neighborhoods strong by enforcing the laws and regulations already on the books, but I’m the one who’ll have to pay for their failure. I know first hand how the city closes its eyes to the nusiance properties where the owner is known and easily located. Why should I be paying multiple fees to the very people who’ve already proven they’re as responsible for the the deplorable plight of our neighborhoods as the irresponsible homeowners are?
In the case of Sepp’s co-worker, you cite the woulda, coulda, shoulda, but you ignore where things stand now for that person. If he’s not renovating, renting, or selling, the city thinks it’s entitled so some of his money — regardless of how he maintains that property and regardless of the financial hole he’s already in. That’s just plain wrong.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:20 amThe “lending institution” was his 401k since his credit wasn’t glamorous enough to get a loan for a house in a “higher risk area”.
The house I own in Toledo is vacant at the moment. YES, I keep it presentable and YES, I am fixing it up.
So why in the hell should I have to PROVE anything to Carty via recipts for building materials or, contractor agreements? As long as the house isn’t falling apart or, in a dangerous condition, why the hell should the city be sticking it’s nose into my private business? Let alone have the option of charging me a fee on top of paying my taxes!
How about the word “PRIVATE” as in private property?
Yeah V, give these clowns just a little more power to abuse…and they ALWAYS do!
Why not make a drug dealer registry or, a hooker and burglar registry and charge a fee too?
We know that there are drug dealers and hookers all over Toledo…why not charge them a fee?
Because they won’t pay it! And neither will anyone who is going to abandon property!
Any bets that those “exempt from the fee” properties will be watched closely and the owners harrassed if the paint chips or, the grass goes unmowed for a week?
Unless my house becomes a problem, I shouldn’t have to answer for anything to anyone! I shouldn’t (nor should anyone else) have to prove my intent and provide documentation (zee papers!)
Why challenge ME to find solutions to Toledo’s problems? YOU ELECTED people to do that based on those promises of “results” right?
I stand by my “we’ll just enact a fee” statement because in the last 4 years, FEES have been the “answer-all” to Toledo’s problems.
Bad governance and people leave…just twist the screws some more on those who stay or, can’t leave!
Make Toledo a more costly place to live and do business…THAT will attract more residents!
You see V, every moronic thing the city government does to make Toledo less attractive to businesses, investors and, people who want to own a home…takes money out of mine and everyone else’s pocket who has invested here!
The viscous circle of Toledo is that Toledoans elect bad leadership who in turn punish them for living here and electing them until they get reelected to punish Toledo some more for electing them.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:38 amThis is typical socialist, “Big Brother” behavior.
“I shouldn’t (nor should anyone else) have to prove my intent and provide documentation (zee papers!)”
The Nazis were socialists!
June 11th, 2008 at 6:41 amHow is the city going to even enforce, monitor and maintain a new system, when the city fails to take care of its own empty lots, that are over grown with grass and weeds.
Heck there is no response from the departments responsible.
June 11th, 2008 at 8:07 amAll in all, it’s just more intrusive government.
More intrusive AND a fee attached to boot!
The point ISN’T if the law is enforcable, the point is our ceding more of our basic rights over to a less than trustable local government who has shown in the past they are willing to abuse their power… (Carty sicking the police on residents of Beechway blvd for resisting the bikepath)
June 11th, 2008 at 10:33 amWhy keep handing these fools more power? They can’t even keep the streets flat.