Use it or lose it
One of the more depressing sights in America these days is the incredible amount of abandonment amid plenty. Baltimore has thousands of abandoned rowhouses, while developers build new subdivisions on farmland. New malls pop up down the road from empty malls. Big box stores open up, leaving whole downtown districts in older towns empty.
If we can't mandate the recycling of older buildings, can't we at least force landlords to remove the old shells they are no longer using?
Treehugger asked this question -- and got an interesting answer. As it turns out, the London borough of Islington has a "Use It or Lose It" law. If you abandon a house or business, the government takes it -- and puts it back to productive use. Perhaps Baltimore and other cities in Maryland could use such a law. The city sometimes condemns and seizes empty properties, but the process is so lengthy and expensive, it can't keep up.
Any thoughts?
Comments
I would be totally in favor of a law for this. I hate all the new buildings that pop-up while old building rot. This country could do a much better job of conserving land.
Posted by: Ben | October 31, 2007 8:23 AM
I wish Baltimore would try something like this. Or at least do something with the tax code to discourage people to sit on vacant property. In my neighborhood (Little Italy) there are many vacant houses and restaurants where the owners are just waiting for the values to rise. This is a fairly desirable area, and the properties would sell if the owners tried. I think if the city raised property taxes significantly every year a property sat vacant there would be more incentive for people to do something.
Posted by: Emily | October 31, 2007 10:30 AM
Yikes! Before we do that I'd like to know how many properties the city already owns (and is neglecting). Take a peak at any urban renewal plan and one gets the idea that it is the city itself that is the worst of Baltimore's landlords.
Perhaps instead of more heavy-handed tactics like eminent domain (and now "use it or lose it"), would-be redevelopers and property owners would benefit from a less severe approach.
Posted by: JRoss | October 31, 2007 1:58 PM