Half stepping like this will doom yet another potential boon for the City.

Minimum: Package the properties as large groups or better still as entire CITY BLOCKS so you can attract the competent and the well financed to redevelop on that scale.

Best: The City should go about the work of thoroughly razing these entire City Block areas first.

Expect that what will exist there in 4-10 years to be different than what is there now. Plan for that.

At least double the footprint area of each address and don't forget the green space allowance.... when all is said and done 40% of the land area should be parky and greeny and even plot gardeny too.

I can't help but feel that trying to sell lots of city owned properties are misplaced. The city has 200,000ish less residents than it had at its peak.

Why not focus on developing the areas and neighborhoods that are already developed instead of adding to the supply while not increasing demand?

A barren lot is less appealing to me than the prospect of a cluster homes available in the same block or blocks.

Even if they are all gut-jobs, people will (hopefully) want a chance to recapture the historic sense of neighborhood (otherwise, they may as well buy in the suburbs).

I think a critical mass of buyers and renovators could help turnaround a neighborhood. Few people are going to want to be the first, though.

Maybe the city should focus on rejuvenating a few blocks at a time through this program? Homesteader neighborhoods could be supported with other services and publicity too.

No one is going to buy these dumps and renovate them in crime ridden Baltimore City. The best case scenario is that an investor buys and rents out to Section 8. What the City really needs is to tear down every one of those homes and rebuild from scratch. Build a new facility for subsidized housing so the displaced renters have a place to live. Give current owners of the properties a fair CURRENT value for their home. Declare imminent domain. That is the only way to rebuild the disgusting, drug, and crime ridden city we call Baltimore.

"fair value" on something totally worthless and/or detrimental to the community, that's rich. i'm tired of this notion that the city is somehow losing out when they don't get $25,000 for a derelict building they've been sitting on for years that does nothing but contribute to the city's image problem - they should be turning these properties out as fast as possible to the most qualified owners in an effort to immediately inject some vitality into the area, not worry about getting a few thousand extra dollars like some slumlord "investor"

The more I read about this program, the more I'm convinced that it's a cobbled-together repackaging of the City's failed SCOPE program. The City time and time refuses to address the fact that so many of these homes are located in neighborhoods where your average Joe and Jane Homeowner won't want to live -- never mind invest thousands into a home they will probably never get their money out of when it's time to move away.

When you have neighborhoods that lack the basics -- a grocery store, efficient transit, a working infrastructure, good schools, and safe streets -- the only people who will want to buy these homes are the Stanley Rochkinds of the world. Slumlords who prey on the poor and marginalized who can't afford to be picky about where they live. And the saga of Baltimore's dwindling tax base and high crime rate will continue, and the residents left behind will continue to suffer.

BSLW - -

I agree with your comment... I just don't see "revitalization" happening in most of the neighborhoods where the City owns a good amount of vacants. There could be some hope for those in the Druid Hill area - maybe - if the proximity to Bolton Hill could help at all...

And sure - it sounds easy/appealing to tear down a lot of the vacants - but I don't think that's the case... Especially if there are houses that aren't city-owned flanking the vacants. Plus, I don't see developers interested in building on some vacant swath of land where there are no amenities (grocery stores, transit, etc.) besides proximity to drug houses, anyway...

This is just a tough situation and the economy is making it worse. Are there any sucess stories in other cities?? Can't Baltimore do a bit more research into what other cities have done to see what works and what doesn't work? Did Newark have a lot of vacants? I feel like Newark is on a modest upswing from being a crime riddled down-and-out city (although it's immediate proximity to NYC is huge).

SLL- that's why the City needs to claim eminent domain. Let them take ownership of ALL the vacant homes. Then they can give it away to investors to tear down and rebuild on their dime. Let them build the shopping centers as part of their own project. This goes for ALL of crime ridden, drug infested Baltimore. Put the displaced renters in subsidized housing in a newly built complex. If you make those areas brand new and get rid of the people causing the problem, Baltimore may be a great city again.

There is far too much emphasis paid to the needs of "citizens" and far too little paid to the needs of taxpayers... whether this latter group exists in the City currently or not (yet).

And that is INCOME taxes. Not property tax.

I feel the need to clarify -- when I speak of "citizens" -- I am indeed speaking of "taxpayers" -- people who pay state, local, and Federal income taxes and therefore are part of the local and larger economy.

SLL, There are cities that have made strides in combatting the problem of vacants, and it's one of the topics we'll be covering over the new year.

Jack Daniels, adding grocery stores should be part of a comprehensive rebuilding of some of our neighborhoods -- and I agree, it should be done at the expense of the developer -- over the long term, the ROI on that investment could be huge...not just for the developer, but for the city as well. It's going to take a lot of oversight on the part of our elected officials, which is things tend to fall...a bit flat.

Some of the people who have said here that the houses should be torn down should remember that Baltimore almost tore down most of Fells Point and half of Canton to build a highway in the 70s.

Fortunatly, they were prevented from doing so. I have worked on over 200 houses in Baltimore.And while some are in bad enough condition to be torn down, most arent.

Why should we tear down houses on North Ave that have beautiful architecture? Just because some here believe that investors would rush in? This is a warped version of Field of Dreams

"If we tear it down,they will come"

We have good housing stock. Lets sell it cheaply to people who want it. In crime ridden areas, get rid of the criminals.Not the houses.

Lets not repeat the mistakes of the 1960's and 70s "urban renewal". Which almost always involved bulldozers

I am a home owner.But in my opinion tje City should be helping people who want to be homeowners to buy and fix up houses. Its not the City's job to prop up home values.

If selling large amounts of houses lowers my home value, then i will not like it.But i could deal with it. What i cant deal with is a city where thousands of people want to be homeowners.But will never acheve thier dream despite thousands of homes laying abandoned and unused

Ive mentioned this before here. But i would like to say again that our home buying system in America is skewed towards making people buy houses thatthey cant afford

A few years back, it was fairly easy to buy a $400,000 house.But it was hard to buy a $15,000 house at an auction.Because auctions require money down.

Some of the houses that the City is selling cost only $7,000. Thats $200 a month for 3 years.But instead of selling to a home owner that could afford to pay $200 a month for 3 years.It will either not sell the house, or the house will be bought by flippers.

i have been to many auctions in Baltimore. they are generally attended by flippers. I know who the flippers are in the neighborhood. And its a shame to see them get all of the good deals. And im not talking about good investors either. Im talking about flippers who have a very bad reputation in the neighborhood

Why cant the City work out a payment plan for some of these abandoned houses. Even at market rate interest rates, almost all Baltimorians would be able to buy a house.And it might attract skilled and adventurous people to come to Baltimore.

We are 40 miles from Washington Dc , for crying out loud. And yet we cant sell houses for $7,000?

Pete: you are a genius however I don’t feel that the city is not really interested in real solutions.
Competent leadership is what's needed on this issue but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. These same houses will be sitting vacant 10 years from now.

Sorry for the typo!

Pete, I agree - - the city just can't tear down everything that is unappealing/connected to drugs... But I think there are some areas that would justify tearing down... Those rows of really boring, *potentially* architectually insignificant (I don't know - am not a historian) West Baltimore rowhouses, where the windows and doors are all cemented up anyway to prevent squatters... I'm sure some of those places are in really poor shape and it could be cheaper to demolish them then to give them the even the most modest, cost-efficient, gut rehab... I don't know - - super old city row houses require a LOT of upkeep and maintenance. I'm looking at houses that have only been neglected for a few years and already the costs for those repairs (water damage especially) keep me from buying....

Thanks for letting us know about the site. I totally believe in the mission in getting that prooperty back into private hands asap as it will at least generate taxes if not more.

Update! Baltimore rejected my bid for the property because it was below the assessed tax value. Bummer.

So, there's 100 that I've lost. According to the city there weren't any other bidders for the property.

:(

Well that isn't cool!! I know the city tearing down blocks of vacant homes in the city via condemning the property. I'm suprised they denied your bid. They are hurting for funds. I bet they used the assessed value on the Tax Assessment website and those are under fire for everyone who is appealing theirs. Is there a way for you to object to the assessed tax value?