Abandoned Houses: A Case for Demolition

1. Abandoned Houses: A Case for Demolition Oakley Julian December 3, 2009 FSCS 480.101

2. The Obvious Problems Attract various forms of crime: • Ideal places to trade, conceal, and consume drugs • Vandalism and other crimes again property • Prostitution • Provides places where offenders who commit crimes elsewhere can meet and plan their activities

3. Other Problems Abandoned Houses: • Strain the resources of local police, fire, and health departments • Depreciate property values • Reduce property tax revenue • Degrade the overall quality of life of the remaining residents In short, abandoned houses require more than their share of time, attention, and money.

4. More Problems • The proximity of vacant and abandoned properties makes obtaining homeowner’s insurance, mortgages, and loans for home improvements more difficult. • An interview with an insurance agent in Washington, DC representing a national insurance company revealed that the presence of a “high hazard” property (which includes condemned properties) within “forty feet of a solid masonry building and 100 feet of a non-masonry building” would lead to a cancellation or non-renewal of an insurance policy.

5. A Major Source of the Problem: City Abandonment • Urban decreases in population since 1950 has caused severe “undercrowding,” a pattern of persistent population loss that leaves behind a large surplus of buildings and land not proportional to the actual population. • The initial abandonment of some buildings may create conditions that lead to the subsequent abandonment of others.

6. City Abandonment According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Baltimore City’s population has decreased by 31.4% since 1950.

7. City Abandonment • 12,700 = number of vacant units from 2000 census • 42, 480 = current units unfit for habitation *Cities, such as Chicago and Portland have tried different approaches to this problem. Portland, Oregon very tight “green belt” law, which has banned development outside a boundary encircling the city and has forced development back into the inner-city.

8. Proposed Program • Buildings whose property values are lower than the costs to repair = demolished • Avoid mid-block demolitions, which could led to the collapse of adjacent units

9. Program Costs • In the fiscal year of 2001 the State of Maryland allotted $2 million to Baltimore City for demolition funding. • $2 million = enough to demolish approximately 300 buildings • At those funding levels, it would take more than 40 years to bring down 12,700 units that are unfit for occupancy.

10. Working with Other Agencies Manpower could come from those who are already receiving government funds. • Unemployment Benefits • Welfare Benefits • Military Personnel Those needing to fulfill community service hours • Probation and Parolees • High School Students

11. Problems with Demolition • Efforts to acquire and demolish derelict units in Baltimore face four major challenges: • tracking ownership of houses and ground rents, • ownership of blighted properties by felons, • limited city staffing for taking problem properties • limited city resources for demolition

12. Problems with Demolition (con.) • Costly • Need to bait for rodents • Erecting temporary perimeter fences • Spraying sites during demolition • Hazardous waste removal (also increases costs) • Asbestos • Lead paint

13. Program Analysis • Anticipated changes will be gradual. • Compiling and analysis of statistical data should occur annually. • Changes in personnel and in individual communities can impact data collection. Should be implemented as a scheduled routine task.

14. Program Evaluation • Considered a success: • Lower crime rates in these areas • Verifiable by police dispatching, crime mapping, and analysis of crime trends • Community retention • Information collected through Census data, DMV records, and changes of address filed with the USPS • Increase in property values • Better allocation of city’s resources