Q&A: Baltimore Slumlord Watch
Two years ago, an anonymous blogger declared war on the absentee property owners letting large swaths of Baltimore rot. The Baltimore Slumlord Watch site is still going strong today, shining the unwelcome light of publicity on blighted real estate and the people, LLCs and (in some cases) government agencies responsible for them.
Names, addresses, resident agents, photographs -- they're all there, along with occasional commentary that doesn't pull punches. "Please note the lack of a roof, exposing this house to the elements — the houses on either side of this blighted mess are occupied," the slumlord watcher wrote of one rowhouse.
So, in light of the anniversary, here's an unusual Q&A for you all today -- one with an unnamed person. She describes herself on the blog as "tired of watching out of town 'investors' and others destroy neighborhoods as a result of their negligence."
Question: Is Baltimore Slumlord Watch a one-person affair -- not counting reader contributions -- or is there a slumlord-watch team?
Answer: It started out as a one-woman show, but others have joined in. I have a couple of people I consider "partners" in this venture, along with a legal advisor who I go to from time to time with questions. As word got out, other cities started similar blogs (Richmond, Va. and Columbus, Ohio come to mind) so I like to think we're now a loose coalition.
Q: How many run-down properties have you "featured"?
A: Out of the 358 total posts I've written, probably 200+ are centered on vacant properties.
Q: What prompted you to start the blog?
A: There were two reasons. One is the fact that I was laid off from my job and needed something to do. I'm a bit of a workaholic, and after a week of daytime TV, I found my brain turning to mush.
The second thing that spurred the project was the fact that I attended a community meeting where the attendees were discussing a problem property, and I realized this was the same conversation we had the last time I attended a community meeting -- at least 3 years prior. I figured that surely one person could make enough noise that someone would listen, without having to create a committee with several sub-committees to tackle the problem. I didn't want to hear to about this same issue three years later ... again and again.
Q: The blog is written anonymously. Why?
A: Because I have one child still at home. At the beginning, I anticipated receiving some nasty emails, perhaps even a threat or two. I am an adult -- I can take care of myself. However, a small child can't, and therefore to protect my child, I had to use anonymity. However, I do understand that it can't go on forever -- my ultimate goal is to shape public policy, and it's hard to do that when you're a "man behind the curtain," so to speak.
Q: Can you share a few personal details -- how long have you lived in Baltimore, what sort of work do you do and are badly maintained properties a problem in your neighborhood?
A: I have lived in Baltimore for just over ten years. I work for a nonprofit in Baltimore City, and have worked in communications for many years. Most of my career has been spent working for architects and builders, and I have been extremely fortunate to have worked for (past and present) people who have taught me everything they know about urban planning/revitalization, land preservation, and how to truly shape communities for the better.
Badly maintained properties are indeed a problem in my neighborhood. However, the true extent of the problem has yet to be realized. Right now we have a lot of empty-but-not-yet-abandoned homes, as a result of the foreclosure crisis and the resulting decline in the economy.
Q: What themes have you noticed in two years of Slumlord Watch blogging?
A: There are two types of bad property owners:
The first is the guy who watched one too many episodes of an HGTV or TLC show on real estate and decided he could do that too, and quickly found out it doesn't really happen in a day or a week, despite what you see on the show. (Have you ever noticed that the people on HGTV never seem to stand in line at the permit office? Never seem to have inspectors come around?)
The second is the true slumlord -- the guy who has owned literally hundreds of properties and has kept them in such horrible disrepair that he's in and out of housing court (and civil court) more often than most of us change our clothes.
Q: Which type do you think is easier for the city to address, a handful of neglectful owners with a lot of real estate or a lot of owners with one or two homes apiece?
A: The guy who owns the large number of parcels -- he's the guy the city should go after the hardest, because he's causing the most damage. Not only to our city, but to the people who live in and around some of his dilapidated properties. Anyone who's been sued hundreds of times for the same thing clearly isn't learning the lesson. Time for him to be told, "Get out and don't do business in Baltimore City."
However, the little guy who owns one or two homes should also feel the wrath of the city. But my guess is that most of those people do want to do the right thing -- they just don't know how, because they didn't bother to do the research beforehand. Sometimes education can go a long way. However, if they don't comply, they also should be hauled into housing court and fined heavily -- environmental crimes and housing violations can be just as hazardous as drug dealing on a community.
Nobody should be allowed to hold a community hostage, whether through illegal activity or ignorance and negligence.
Q: What could city officials do to attack the problem of neglectful ownership that they aren't doing now? What could residents do?
A: Create solutions that are sustainable over the long term, with strong no-nonsense leadership at the helm. Frankly, some of our neighborhoods are so filled with blocks of blighted homes and nothing to attract long-term taxpaying residents. It seems a waste to promote those homes as worth saving, when you have vacants in other neighborhoods that are viable -- neighborhoods with transit, strong infrastructure, and potential for further development.
One of the things -- an elephant in the room, if you will -- people don't like to discuss, is the fact that you will always have a "bad part of town." Always. Not every neighborhood in every city is going to be "the next Canton" or "the next ... whatever." The city needs to look at some of these neighborhoods, go back 50 years -- who lived there? Who lives there now? Have the demographics drastically changed, or is that just wishful thinking?
Develop our neighborhoods for the taxpaying, law-abiding citizens who live there -- they represent the people you're trying to attract -- make sure they have access to good schools, supermarkets, transit, clean sidewalks and streets, open space -- and the positive changes will happen organically and sustainably. If you develop a community for a population that doesn't yet exist, you're taking a huge risk, and with taxpayer money. None of us can afford to waste money anymore, or time.
Q: Have you seen results from the blog's MO of taking photos and naming names?
A: As a matter of fact, yes. I need to do some updating -- but there have been some changes, positive ones. 701 Washington Boulevard, our first property, now has a functioning business where the vacant supermarket used to be, and the entire shopping center has undergone small improvements. Other properties have been improved to some extent, and others have been sold. In the new year we'll definitely do an update on some of the worst-of-the-worst.
Categories: Q&A, Real estate investing
Sign up for the At Home newsletter 
Comments
Baltimore Slumlord Watch is the best website that i wish would shut down.and im guessing that the lady who runs it would love to run out of reasons to operate it.Sadly , it will be a website that Baltimore needs for a long time.
I do appreciate the efforts of the woman who runs it.
BTW, this is off topic Jamie.but i was wondering if you or the lady who runs slumlord Watch, now why someof the vacant houses in East Baltimore have a red sign with a white X on them ?I statred to see them in the areas between Monument and North Ave, about a month ago.
Are they being put there by the City to mark them for demolition? Or are they some crazy art project by a MICA student. Ive seen dozens of these signs on abandoned houses in that area.and other people have asked me about them.I figured you would be the perfect person to ask
Posted by: Pete from Highlandtown | January 5, 2011 10:25 AM
Strange! I'll see if I can find out. (Perhaps the slumlord watcher knows.)
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | January 5, 2011 10:27 AM
Hmm, Googling around, I found this in a document from an Ohio city's abandoned-building program:
"Once an abandoned or vacant building is identified, a representative of the Community Development
schedules a site visit. The site is evaluated for security measures, hazards to life safety and hazards to
public safety providers. Recommendations are then made to the building owner/occupant and a 24” x
24” sign, red in color, is then posted on the building indicating the relative condition of the building.
"A sign with a red field reflects normal building stability at the time of the marking. A red field with a
white line diagonally on the field “ \ “ reflects interior operations can be undertaken with extreme
caution. A red field with a white “X” reflects exterior operations only unless a known life hazard is
present."
http://www.ci.sandusky.oh.us/fire/documents/AbandonedBuildingProgram.pdf
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | January 5, 2011 10:30 AM
Pete, I inquired with the housing department. I'll let you know what they say.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | January 5, 2011 10:46 AM
I had no idea this website was out there! I'm all about helping out! What do you think would happen if some of the cities properties made it onto the website?
Posted by: Pigtown girl | January 5, 2011 11:45 AM
Pigtown girl,
Check out the site. There are plenty of city-owned properties on there.
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford | January 5, 2011 12:40 PM
If you are going to use the force of government to compel behavior, it should not be used to exacerbate what is already an investment discouraging risk/reward ratio. It should be used to improve that ratio.
Specifically, restrictions and regulations on improving property should be eliminated, or at a minimum reduced. Ask anyone who has done a significant rehab in the city. The permitting process is a nightmare that discourages gentrification, and increases costs.
If restrictions are to be used, they should be applied to new construction. Why are developers building on vacant lots when there are vacant buildings? Eliminating new construction would by way of the substitution effect, increase the demand for vacant structures.
Taxes are double the rest of the state and deep seeded corruption of big developer influence over City Hall is at the heart of it. Developers increase the tax burden on regular people by getting various exemptions that allow hundred million dollar office towers to exist tax-free, while the neighborhood convenience store and the average home owner pick up the slack. You sever this by eliminating campaign contributions by developers with business before the city.
Baltimore City also spends 20% of its general fund, or 40% of its property tax revenue, paying pensions to people who no longer work for the city.
With a more attractive tax rate, fewer restrictions to renovation, and more restrictions on the substitute for renovation, Bmore can make a dent in its vacant housing problem. But the heart of the issue is the fact that Bmore's population has fallen by a third from a peak of 949k in 1950 , to 637k today, and this drop was compounded by new construction.
Baltimore suffers from government engineered market failure.
Posted by: Josh Dowlut | January 5, 2011 1:05 PM
We recently had a fireman at our Community Meeting and we were told that the "X"s represent an unstable structure. This is in the (likely) event that a vacant catches on fire; the fire department knows to fight the fire only from the outside to minimize the risk of injury to firefighters.
Posted by: Marian | January 5, 2011 1:10 PM
Thanks, Marian!
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | January 5, 2011 1:14 PM
Jamie
Thanks for the answer.I had never seen them in Baltimore before.And they seemed to be on a diverse bunch of houses.But maybe the fronts looked good and the insides were burnt out.I havent seen any of the other signs that you mentoined yet
I wonder if this is a sign [no pun intended] that the City is actually trying to see what they own and are trying to sell someof thier abandoned houses. i know that they have the website that you wrote about.But that looked half-hearted to me. Here's hoping that the City is getting serious about the issue.
It seems to me if it cold be a political winner for Rawlings-Blake. Fixing up ,or having private owners fix up the abandoned houses in Baltimore would be an extremly visible achievment.And its something thats actually doable.
Lets face it.there is only so much anyone can do to lower crime.But fixing abandoned houses is brick and mortar stuff .Its not about changing peoples behavour. Its the simple act of selling houses to people so they will fix them up.
I see a tremendous "upside" to the Mayor making this oneof her main goals.and very few "downsides"
Posted by: Pete from Highlandtown | January 5, 2011 3:17 PM
"It's not the "nice" guy who brings about real social change. "Nice" guys look nice because they're conforming. It's the "bad" guys, who only look nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution."--Robert Pirsig (Lila,1991)
It is well past the time for small measures.
Posted by: MrRational | January 5, 2011 3:30 PM
Long time fan of the blog, keep up the good work!
Posted by: Evan | January 5, 2011 3:51 PM
You guys are amazing. Really. Thank you so much for your inspiring comments, and many many thanks to Jamie for making me sit down and think about what I'm doing, and where I want this to go.
Posted by: Baltimore Slumlord Watch | January 5, 2011 4:46 PM
I have a complaint about a different type of slumlord. I'm renting a house in Pigtown and was told by the landlord after signing a lease that there was no heat. He steadfastly refuses to provide any. I called the housing inspector and now he is trying to evict me. Do you have any advice about how to deal with this kind of slumlord. There is more but it would take forevet.
Posted by: Jeanne Milliard | November 7, 2011 9:29 PM
I'm sorry to hear that, Jeanne. You might try calling Baltimore Neighborhoods Inc.'s landlord-tenant hotline to hear about your legal options (like taking your landlord to small-claims court). Details about BNI here: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/realestate/blog/2011/06/qa_renting.html
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | November 7, 2011 9:36 PM
Jeanne, it is illegal in Maryland for a landlord to begin eviction proceedings against a tenant in retaliation for filing a complaint against the landlord. The law passed in 2010, and went into effect last month.
If you need assistance, I would recommend calling the Public Justice Center -- they can help, and they were front and center to get this law passed.
Here is the text of the law: http://mlis.state.md.us/2011rs/bills/sb/sb0620e.pdf
And here's a link to the Public Justice Center's website: http://www.publicjustice.org/
Best of luck to you.
Posted by: Baltimore Slumlord Watch | November 8, 2011 9:38 PM
That's useful to know -- thanks, BSW.
Posted by: Jamie Smith Hopkins | November 8, 2011 10:06 PM