Abandoned run-down houses

[gagaastorey]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am from Detroit and I wonder why boarded up houses and run-down houses are allowed to blight neighborhoods. Are there not any laws requiring the owners of the houses to keep them in good condition or tear them down?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[FarmerJ]

G its all about money , bottom line , if you think about Detroits own economic history it has had many changes to its economy for the worst since the late 60s , Every thing from the massive white flight in years before the 60s to manufacturing loss and gains, then of course a reduced tax base that detroit suffered from lower home values since so many urban govts are dependant on some funding coming from property taxes , good times higher vals, bad times reduced vals. Look at your own states spending on roads , your state didnt have the money to spend for many many years then in the very late 90s the money was good and your state did a massive amount of road work long over due. Another stretch of time happened in the city where property values dropped so low it wasnt funny, people who bought at 40k ended up walking away from property that hit lows around 10k in value. Like I said its all about money , Detroit has suffered so many years of reduced income at city hall just whom do they get money from to demolish older housing that is not worth rehab? and if they had it then where will they find the money to rebuild ? in the late 90s I recall areas out along Michigan avenue going west of DT Detroit that looked horrid , they had been neglected for years. Private LLs arent going to put huge amounts of money into structures that will not produce a profit. Should the feds step in with money to change things ? I dont think so , too much govt created monsters like Mpls olson/ sumner-field public housing projects that failed and finally was torn down, or bigger messes like alot of the public housing projects in Chicago. YES citys have ords that often spell out minimal maint of property but then again in some areas there is no money to enforce OR if they have the money do they really want to drive out more and more property owners on the edge?

[HomeGuru]

Originally Posted by gagaastorey

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am from Detroit and I wonder why boarded up houses and run-down houses are allowed to blight neighborhoods. Are there not any laws requiring the owners of the houses to keep them in good condition or tear them down?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

**A: some of those properties belong to banks who do not have the money to fix up the properties and can't sell them due to the depressed real estate market.

[gagaastorey]

I agree, it is all about money. But why should real estate investors and banks be allowed to make money when the market is good and walk away from their responsibilities when things go sour? Abandoned houses bring crime to poor neighborhoods. The owner of the house walks away and the people in the neighborhood are the ones who suffer. I think if we had criminal charges against the owners of the abandoned houses, they would find the money to take the house down. The real estate speculators know they can get away with it, so they take the risk and make money off of the poor people, but once the market isn't profitable, they walk away. They leave a huge piece of toxic litter on the ground, an abandoned house that attracts crime, is unsafe, and ruins the neighborhood. Couldn't they be criminally prosecuted for breaking the law?

[nextwife]

Originally Posted by HomeGuru

**A: some of those properties belong to banks who do not have the money to fix up the properties and can't sell them due to the depressed real estate market.

Additionally, many homes are in legal limbo, not yet owned by the banks. In my state, foreclosure can take a year or more. A lender will not improve a property until they own it.

[FarmerJ]

G when a so called investor buys a property and ends up walking away they dont get off scot free they are 100% responsible for any deficit when the house is resold . SO if someone bought at 100k and walked away with a home that still had 75 k owed on it and the foreclosing lender succeeds in re selling the home for 40k the original borrower still owes 35k plus what ever additional legal cost created by letting it go to foreclosure. The only way that debt can be removed from the original borrower is thru BK and BK is not as easy as it used to be. A BK impacts the borrower for a set period of time too so its not like they are going to be able to do it again. G I hope you havent forgotten that this current mess all over the nation was fueled by two things , a lending industry that at times made less than wise choices and Borrowers who often made less than wise choices to sign mortgage contracts. As far as cities go there are some cities that have began to force buyers of non owner occupied property to pay fees that will be used to help fund board ups and inspections of property. Your local elected officials are the ones to turn to with complaints about empty home conditions. Many groups like habbitat do a great job with property thats in poor shape but even they have limits. Your best off spending your energy focusing on your elected officials and participating in neighborhood groups focused on housing related issues and getting new owner occupants into housing.