Vacant & Abandoned Buildings

[HangryHippo]

What do you mean it's still embargoed for the moment?

[DoctorTaco]

What do you mean it's still embargoed for the moment?

I mean at the moment you can only read it if you are an Oklahoman subscriber. It was not out on newsok.com yet as of my posting the link.

[ljbab728]

Steve's take in his blog.

No More Free Rides for Blighted Properties | News OK

[UnFrSaKn]

No More Public Incentives for Blighted Properties? | News OK

[progressiveboy]

No More Public Incentives for Blighted Properties? | News OK

It is about time the city drafted an ordinance concerning blighted properties. OKC has way to many "Slum lords" causing the city to look nasty looking and decreasing property values and tax rolls for the city. Hope this ordinance will be enforceable and have some bite to it. OKC slumlords beware, It is time to clean up the city.

[BBatesokc]

Sorry, didn't read every post, so the answer may be somewhere above. But I just saw a story about this on the news and it sounded like the only penalty is a couple hundred dollar fine for an entire year. Doesn't seem like much incentive to change to me.

[LakeEffect]

Sorry, didn't read every post, so the answer may be somewhere above. But I just saw a story about this on the news and it sounded like the only penalty is a couple hundred dollar fine for an entire year. Doesn't seem like much incentive to change to me.

This is essentially step one. Next up is trying to get state laws changed to allow more things to be done. One part would be a land-banking system. In our current political climate, I see that being tough to pass, but, if it does, it would be great. Various iterations can happen - I studied this one in grad school: Genesee County Land Bank -

[BBatesokc]

This is essentially step one. Next up is trying to get state laws changed to allow more things to be done. One part would be a land-banking system. In our current political climate, I see that being tough to pass, but, if it does, it would be great. Various iterations can happen - I studied this one in grad school: Genesee County Land Bank -

Can they not use existing nuisance abatement laws/consequences to give more incentive?

[LakeEffect]

Can they not use existing nuisance abatement laws/consequences to give more incentive?

Nope. The laws essentially create a set-up where it's better to board up and keep it secured than it is to keep things occupied and in good shape. The Walcourt is a good example (NE 13th & Walnut). Been boarded up for 30 years, and in relatively good shape. Many, many people would love it buy it and re-use it.

[onthestrip]

Its kind of shocking to me that the type of landowner that doesnt care about their property becoming junk would also be the type that turns down money offers to buy them. Why would they hate money so much but love properties in disrepair? Do they all think a Walgreens is going to come make a million dollar offer for their slum house?

Also, what was the reasons opponents didnt like this change from the city?

[tomokc]

I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

[warreng88]

I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

It is not secure and it is a public nuissance. From Steve's blog: The old Sunshine Laundry has been subject to fire and police calls.

Now, he is didn't say how many calls had been made, but with no roof on at least half of the structure not to mention the pictures of the interior (see this thread for evidence: Sunshine Cleaners - 1st and Classen Boulevard - OKCTalk) which show traces of squatters and so much damage done it would take a lot of money just to bring it up to code.

[LakeEffect]

I don't understand the purpose of Steve's comparison in his blog of the Hart Building (720 W. Sheridan, Chip Fudge, occupied & thriving) and Sunshine Cleaners (SW/C 1st & Classen, unknown owner, burned & vacant) in the context of this story. I particularly didn't understand his reference to an "incentive" to keeping Sunshine vacant: "Why should the Sunshine Laundry owners be given the incentive – yes an incentive – to not improve their property?"

I'm certainly not defending the owners of Sunshine, but what is the issue so long as the building is secure and not a public nuisance?

The incentive is basically that you can let your property sit and be judged as "salvage" by the County and pay next-to-nothing in taxes. Start putting money into it, and you'll have to pay more taxes (but your value/income should go up too).

[Pete]

A dilapidated, abandoned building is a nuisance to the neighborhood and bad for the City overall.

The incentive is that as long as it's kept in poor shape, it has much less of a tax assessment, which makes it easy on the owners and bad for the City who needs the revenue.

[warreng88]

Pete, it looks like posts are being duplicated in two threads. One in General Real Estate Topics and one in General Civic Issues.

[Pete]

Pete, it looks like posts are being duplicated in two threads. One in General Real Estate Topics and one in General Civic Issues.

I merged two threads to just this one.

[tomokc]

Yes, I saw where Steve wrote that it had been the subject of police & fire calls, but he didn't provide a time frame or context (I've had the police and fire departments at my house, but that doesn't mean we should tear it down).

Further, Steve has simply used tax revenue as a definition of worthiness. If the Sunshine building was torn down entirely, the owner could make an argument that it should be taxed at an even lower rate because NO improvements exist. Then what do you have? No blight, but less tax revenue.

Yes, it's an eyesore. Yes, it's a public nuisance. Yes, the owners should be outed and shamed. Yes, they should sell it to someone who will invest, build and improve the neighborhood. But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

[Pete]

But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

They will still be able to do as they please, they just will be paying more in taxes.

In the study, it showed there was a huge incidence of police and fire at abandoned versus occupied buildings. So, you have the buildings contributing the least in terms of taxes with the most demand for expensive services.

[adaniel]

Freedom! Liberty! I have the right to let my property decline and be a meth den because I am an American, dammit!

Sorry but I just have to smh at stuff like this. People who say such things have obviously never lived in an urban environment where this is a problem. At its most basic argument, the city is just looking out for the itself and the taxpayer. Lower property taxes paid in+higher likelihood of police and fire call means the city is losing money on each and every one of these abandoned properties. And that $ has to come from somewhere, typically your pocket.

I can tell you that most big cities have something very similar to this. We are tardy to the party here, and its long overdue.

[Steve]

Yes, I saw where Steve wrote that it had been the subject of police & fire calls, but he didn't provide a time frame or context (I've had the police and fire departments at my house, but that doesn't mean we should tear it down).

Further, Steve has simply used tax revenue as a definition of worthiness. If the Sunshine building was torn down entirely, the owner could make an argument that it should be taxed at an even lower rate because NO improvements exist. Then what do you have? No blight, but less tax revenue.

Yes, it's an eyesore. Yes, it's a public nuisance. Yes, the owners should be outed and shamed. Yes, they should sell it to someone who will invest, build and improve the neighborhood. But, yes, it's also their property and they're free to do with it as they please, so long as it is secure doesn't pose a hazard. I'm also not happy with continual delays with the Tower Theater or Nick Preftakes or the Brewer brothers, but that doesn't mean that the city has the right to tell them what to do.

Actually, they're not free to do with it as they wish. They can not, for example, operate it as a meth lab. Cities have codes and zoning that govern how property is used. That is common and has been in place for decades. Would you be OK if I opened a meth lab in the house next to your's? After all - if I bought the property, isn't it my right as you argue it for me to do as I wish?

[Pete]

What's particularly bad about the current situation is that there is such a demand for housing and commercial properties, and yet people just sit on them because it doesn't cost them anything.

I've heard so many stories about owners being approached about selling an abandoned property and they just sit on them for decades.

This is not only bad for the tax base, it's terrible for the neighborhoods. It's really pretty absurd that the current situation has been allowed for so long.


What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

If you read through the muni code, it is actually quite strict -- it just isn't enforced. You have to keep your property secure, in decent shape, grass cut, etc. Almost none of the vacant properties around town come close to meeting these requirements and they should be fined accordingly.

[Steve]

Tomokc, I hope I didn't offend you with my response. But I could also propose opening a sirachi (sp) hot sauce plant next to your home, or a strip club or a live rock venue, based on the idea that a person's individual property rights should be paramount.

[kevinpate]

What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

If you read through the muni code, it is actually quite strict -- it just isn't enforced. You have to keep your property secure, in decent shape, grass cut, etc. Almost none of the vacant properties around town come close to meeting these requirements and they should be fined accordingly.

If memory serves, squeaky wheels can get code enforcement out, but little else will. My memory from when I worked in south OKC is there's not much active enforcement happening, but eventually there may be some modicum of reactive enforcement.

[Dubya61]

What I really hope is that once these properties are on a registry, that the City will actually issue citations when someone calls about municipal code violations. To me, this would be far more effective than some small surcharge.

I know sometimes I tend to have my head in the clouds and not a firm grip on reality, but what I would like to see happen is a registry developed (realistic IMO) and a planner (non-engineer planner -- not realistic in OKC IMO) work with these identified properties in a calculated manner to find the best possible use for these properties that benefits both the city AND the owner. There's got to be a win-win possible here, I think.
If you think my idea is loopy and you've heard it before, see my comments about getting people off subsistence payments in the WalMart Food drive thread. Same concept.

[kevinpate]

My only concern is remembering something similar in Tulsa, not all that long ago. Something was instituted to urge along activity on empty structures.
Fairly quickly the empty structures were gone, replaced by empty lots. Most/all of the now empty lots were still owned by folks who were not only still in no hurry to sell or develop, but a bit peeved as well.