""The city probably has the biggest problem, because there are a lot more investor-owned properties here,"..."

I often dump on the City but there are some objective facts in play that too often aren't fully understood or appreciated by many newcomers or outsiders:
1) The City is a statistical morass in this largely because it is a statistical anomaly.
Independent of the RE issues being reported here the City is alone (with perhaps two exceptions) among all the other cities by being an independent political entity.

2) There are large tracts of properties in the city described as "homes" that have no legitimate reason to remain standing. The bureaucratic inertia and legalities which allow this can't continue to be tolerated. RAZE THEM.

I find much of the Baltimore figures frustrating because the city is characterized by neighborhoods that differ so widely in character (slumy, better off, trendy, wealthy, etc) incl. also differences home sizes, types and prices. You know what I mean, surely, so I won't elaborate further. Moreover, zip code based data doesn't help that much because either, e.g. Guilford, Waverly and Northwood are all in the same zip code - each very different places with similar houses selling at vastly different prices. I think the your price point piece was helpful in this regard, as some neighborhoods tend to be concentrated in certain price ranges, so one could perhaps extrapolate from that.

Richard Clinch's comments on investor owned properties is important. Baltimore, historically, has been a magnet for legitimate and deceptive residential real estate investors. During the "boom" both flourished and many homeowners and inexperienced investors are now in trouble. REO properties are foreclosures on both owner occupants (aka "homeowners") and investors, some of whom have gotten into financial trouble. Residential real estate investors are totally unregulated, yet they buy and sell properties, often plastering the City with illegal, unsightly advertising signs, they compete with the licensed,regulated real estate brokers, rather than buy property, some routinely assign purchase contracts, never intending to take title, investors use limited liability companies to conceal their identity, they pay "finders fees" to other unlicensed people to locate buyers and sellers.... It is time to regulate the investors.

"I find much of the Baltimore figures frustrating because the city is characterized by neighborhoods that differ so widely in character (slumy, better off, trendy, wealthy, etc)"

Is this much different than any other city? D.C., Atlanta, Boston, New York. I think your statement could apply to any of these places.

It is time to start viewing the small investor as a partner in economic recovery and not the enemy. Investors take on significant risk and many of those who lost their properties, lost much more: they lost money invested; the time invested; and often their credit.

While investor owned property is included in the inventory of REO property, investors also represent the best hope for reducinge REO inventory. The REO purchase is outside of the comfort zone of the typical homeowner. Few have the cash resources or time to do the renovations needed to completed needed repairs to the properties.

There are hundreds of small investors active in the region and operating as sole propreitors or through a corporation. These investors are renovating Baltimore, one house at a time.

Unfortunately, the small investors is seldom counted among the ranks of "small business" owners. They work out of their homes. Many invest part time and few have direct employees. As a result, their contribution to the economy is ignored.

Most do 1-5 properties a year and others renovate 20-50. Most of these properties were purchased in poor condition. Many prevented a foreclosure from happening. Many resulted in vacant shells being returned to the tax rolls.

Add the cummulative effect of this activity over the 5-7 years of the 'boom', and the small investor contributed greatly to the regions economy. Contractors were employed, property tax revenues raised, sales taxes collected on home improvement purchases and formerly vacant shells now provide housing for many fist time homes or provide affordable rental housing.

While large scale developements are hailed by the press, these large scale projects require millions in City subsidies and are offered significant tax breaks. It seems reasonable to extend the same tax breaks to small investors.

The City understands that enormous tax increases following substantial rehabilitation represents a disincentive to home buyers. That is why the expensive projects are property tax subsidized. It would be interesting to know, how many of the purchasers of homes over $300k fled to the suburbs or lost their properties once the period of subsidy expired.

It is time to level the playing field if Baltimore is to continue to attract the small investor. Continual and expanded regulation is more likely to send investors to Pennsylvania or other more hospitable locations. The City needs these agents of change and their contributions to the economy.