I'm all for this as long as people who are in the process of renovating/rehabbing get some sort of reasonable reprieve (like six or eight months of the occupied rate).

I'm curious though as to how much anybody thinks the city could lower the rate for occupied property because the city itself owns so many empty places. Do you know percent-wise how many?

it's been a good policy in DC. Vacants blight the area and lower everyone else's property values.

However a big part of the problem in Baltimore is that much of the vacants are city property, because the properties were abandoned long ago. The city needs to do a much better job of getting city-owned vacant rowhouses rehabbed - preferably renovating entire blocks at once.

The legislation needs to be crafted carefully to encourage development of these properties in a positive manner and to ensure loopholes are eliminated.

Based on the inventory of 10,000+ that the City currently can't manage to title and dispose of... changing the amount of unpaid taxes associated from X to Y won't do much on it's own.

Streamline and expedite the process to gain legal title; package entire blocks of these properties for their next incarnation.

Tear them down and start over or even better... tear them down and plant grass.

Justine,

The city owns about 1/3 of the 30,000+ vacant properties, so that still leaves 20,000+ properties that would be taxed at a higher rate.

The actual number of vacants is probably much higher than the 30,000 you see everywhere. Just because a property isn't trashed (yet) doesn't mean it's being taken care of.

In my neighborhood there are many vacant homes -- some of them rehabbed -- and you wouldn't know they were abandoned, unless you look hard. They haven't been boarded up yet, and the windows haven't been broken out. But give it time...

This is a brilliant policy and I would love to see it implemented immediately! Please keep us all up to date with what happens with this policy idea.

Thats right, tax them at a higher rate so that instead of 33% being city owned shells, 70%+ would then become city owned by way of abandonment. The city needs to look at a way of getting these properties rehabbed and back on the tax rolls. How about a tax amnesty for these things so people would get into them and fix them up. How about cutting the city tax rate in half so there would be a rea influx into the city. Think out of the box people.

This proposal would be the kick the pants that people need to either sell the property or start fixing it up. The city needs to do something to support residents who are trying to do something positive, rather than allowing the hope of "someday this neighborhood will turn around and I'll be rich" herd immunity nonsense to continue.

Susanne, the dirty little secret is that of the 30,000+ "home addresses" currently in play the residential market doesn't need more than a few thousand. What is to become of the other 25,000+?

More to the point is who has the guts to admit that the market needs all 30,000 of these addresses erased from the roles, to have most of the land then returned to meadows of grass and perhaps as many as 5,000 NEW homes built on the perimeter of those meadows of grass.

Some can be set aside for low income but lets be serious here... the last thing the City needs is more low income housing. Try to imagine a new Mount Washington or Roland Park rather than low rise public housing.

Once this collection of the worst of the currently existing residential properties are razed the next tier of addresses close to the bottom becomes instantly more valuable; with much worth the (un-coerced) investment of rebuilding.

Who has the nerve to initiate real change needed rather than limit efforts to the half measures and window dressing that has been the rule for far too long?

How about a renter's tax. Meaning everyone who rents in the city must pay a tax. That will give much needed relief to home owners. You could asses a tax on the land lord

Dexter, there already is, in a manner of speaking. Landlords don't get the homestead credit, so -- unlike many homeowners -- they're always paying property taxes on their full assessments. (Unless they're pretending to be homeowners, anyway.)