PG Government Tearing Down Blighted Houses: Good or Bad Idea? (Baltimore: real estate, 2013)

[justtitans]

Prince George’s tearing down blighted, foreclosed houses, stepping up code enforcement - The Washington Post

As the Prince George’s County Council debates details of the $2.7 billion budget, there is one issue where all appear to agree: The time has come to redo the county’s code enforcement and permitting system.

Tucked inside County Executive Rushern L. Baker III (D) budget proposal is a plan that would create a new Department of Permits, Inspection and Enforcement , and with it a new system to overhaul how the county deals with vacant houses, uncut grass and other neighborhood nuisances. Council members have uniformly said they back the plan. Council chairman Andrea C. Harrison (D-Springdale) lauded the plan recently, saying that some of her constituents had been pushing “for 20, 25 years” to get derelict properties fixed up or town down.

Ortiz estimates that problem properties devalue neighboring homes by as much as $17,000, a significant sum in a county where many homeowners owe more on their houses than they are valued, and where the foreclosure rate remains Maryland’s highest.


Ortiz said that many of the houses the county has torn down recently have been vacant for five or more years. In one Landover neighborhood, residents said that there was at least one house that had been a problem for 25 years.

Someone in the comment section of the article made a great point, how far will the government be allowed to go in determining if a property should be tore down or not? That is extremely important because otherwise the government could just tear down houses without reasonable cause.

[molukai]

If a house is blighted and...

~ Abandoned, or
~ Foreclosed, or
~ Breaking city health or building codes, or
~ Creating an environment conducive to illegal habitation and/or other criminal activity

[Mr Beco]

They did it in parts of Baltimore, how did that work out?

[UrbanScholar]

It could be but there is a lot of room for abuse. If implemented improperly, an entire neighborhood could be leveled at the will of a backroom deal with a developer or you have communities with only a handful of homes still standing with no foreseable improvements.

[Mr Beco]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

It could be but there is a lot of room for abuse. If implemented improperly, an entire neighborhood could be leveled at the will of a backroom deal with a developer or you have communities with only a handful of homes still standing with no foreseable improvements.

always some form of corruption, it seems, when it comes to real estate.

[adelphi_sky]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

It could be but there is a lot of room for abuse. If implemented improperly, an entire neighborhood could be leveled at the will of a backroom deal with a developer or you have communities with only a handful of homes still standing with no foreseable improvements.

I think there would be errors on the end of leaving a few properties standing that COULD be demolished. If I'm not mistaken, it costs money to demolish a home and prepare the land for a new house or vegetation. I don't see the county wasting money demolishing properties that don't need to be.

Personally, I'm glad for this initiative, there's a house in my neighborhood that has been adding a room for 15 years. lol It looks like a bulldozer chopped half the house down. It's all over grown with vegetation. There has been many meetings on what to do, but since there are no HOAs, the owners can pretty much leave it like it is. With this new law, they would HAVE to do something in a reasonable amount of time or have it torn down. WE've been lucky that it hasn't become a spot for prostitution or drug dealing.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by adelphi_sky

I think there would be errors on the end of leaving a few properties standing that COULD be demolished. If I'm not mistaken, it costs money to demolish a home and prepare the land for a new house or vegetation. I don't see the county wasting money demolishing properties that don't need to be.

Personally, I'm glad for this initiative, there's a house in my neighborhood that has been adding a room for 15 years. lol It looks like a bulldozer chopped half the house down. It's all over grown with vegetation. There has been many meetings on what to do, but since there are no HOAs, the owners can pretty much leave it like it is. With this new law, they would HAVE to do something in a reasonable amount of time or have it torn down. WE've been lucky that it hasn't become a spot for prostitution or drug dealing.

There is a cost but you are assuming that city/county governments that decide to go down this road are looking at the big picture. Detroit is an example where this has happened and they didn't realize the impact until it was determined that they were providing services to a neighborhood with one house in it....Don't get me wrong, I think it is a good idea but it has to be managed correctly to avoid mis-steps.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by UrbanScholar

It could be but there is a lot of room for abuse. If implemented improperly, an entire neighborhood could be leveled at the will of a backroom deal with a developer or you have communities with only a handful of homes still standing with no foreseable improvements.

This is definitely my concern. I think the county really want to completely re-do certain areas and some places they can use this as an excuse. Places around National Harbor, Eastover, and maybe even some other inside the beltway locations come to mind. This would really lay the ground works for gentrifying inside the beltway.

[UrbanScholar]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

This is definitely my concern. I think the county really want to completely re-do certain areas and some places they can use this as an excuse. Places around National Harbor, Eastover, and maybe even some other inside the beltway locations come to mind. This would really lay the ground works for gentrifying inside the beltway.

Yeah I felt the same way after reading it but I would think that Eastover has a greater chance than the areas surrounding NH. Mainly because the voter block is really strong in that area and I couldn't see them being successful. I could be wrong but given the pushback that area has done with development, I don't see them being complacent with a plan with no direction.

[molukai]

Originally Posted by pgtvatitans

This is definitely my concern. I think the county really want to completely re-do certain areas and some places they can use this as an excuse. Places around National Harbor, Eastover, and maybe even some other inside the beltway locations come to mind. This would really lay the ground works for gentrifying inside the beltway.

I would support this movement whole-heartedly.