Dilapidated Property

Miscellaneous General
1

Hello everyone! I have a question that I could really use some help on. But first, a bit of background:

I live in a small city of around 11k people. We’re going to be having our first contested mayoral race since about 15 years ago, so everyone’s geared up for an election season that’s really going to change the way things are done around here. The local paper has been running reader polls on some of the issues being discussed. One of these issues is dilapidated property. It seems everyone wants to know what the new mayor is going to have the city do about dilapidated property.

Now, I don’t know exactly what defines dilapidated, but basically, if it’s rundown, or if it’s even just plain ugly, the people want something done about it. Here a few of the comments left in the paper:

“[R]eader thinks the city should begin by giving the owner of a dilapidated property a time limit in which to either clean up the property or tear it down. If the owner fails to do so in the specified time frame, reader thinks the city should claim the property and if the structure can be renovated, donate it to a local charity program. If the property cannot be made usable, it should be cleared and sold, with the proceeds going toward community-minded programs such as youth activities or the fight against crime, says reader.”

“Another reader agreed that condemned and dilapidated homes should be torn down, and offers the following message to property owners in the city: ‘Take some pride in our beautiful city! Do unto other property owners as you would have them do unto you.’”

“Caller wants to know what [is going to be done] about neighbors who refuse to take care of their property. He says that because of lazy neighbors, the property values are falling for everyone else.”

“Those places are hot spots for juvenile crime. They attract drug dealers and vagrants, and if the city cared about itself, it would tear them down.”

“One point no one has raised is that those properties bring down everyone else’s property value. A house might be worth $150,000, but if it’s sitting next to a burned out, ramshackle old house, there’s no way you’d get that much for it. The city would be doing good property owners a favor by tearing down dilapidated properties.”

Whew. Sorry for the long wall of quotes.

The reader poll asked (I don’t have it in front of me right now, so I’ll paraphrase) if the reader supported the city claiming dilapidated property. 79% said “yes.”

I’m completely opposed to do this. I hate this – it makes me so mad to read these comments. I get it, I get it – the buildings look bad, blah blah blah. But somebody owns them, and the city shouldn’t be grabbing property up because that somebody isn’t a “good property owner.” Etc.

My question is… how do I respond to these people? I’m pretty new to the Austrian and libertarian scenes, and I’m a terrible arguer. I don’t know how to answer things like, “What about all the crime going on there?” and “What about my property values?”

What’s the best way to get across to these people the importance of property rights? Thank you.

2

Well, instead of forcing owners to make their property pretty you could try paying them.

I think its a difficult situation because of the way property rights were initially set up… I mean if you build a neighborhood somewhere, the people have homesteaded air, sunshine, peace, etc. It might be a violation of their homesteading rights to put up an eyesore across the street from them. This is obviously problemmatic because then anyone can claim any change is “grotesque”, violating the homesteaded right to peace, and have it torn down. But I think the theory is sound…

On a free market the real estate developer would have just bought up all the land around them and leased it out with non-ugly provisions. I think that’s the approach you should take… a nonviolent arbitrage solution.

3

Hello and welcome.

Let’s start with order. How is a building defined as “dilapidated”? Is there a law proposal to define this? Or will everything be simply handed over to a non-elected “commission” that will decide according to criteria common people cannot understand? Or is it just pre-election mumbo-jumbo?

Second. How are property values in your area? Are they stable? Are they on the rise? Are they on the decline? Talking for a few minutes to a couple of local realtors (they haven’t got much else to do nowadays ) may clear this. If values are stable or declining this may be yet another clumsy attempt at market manipulation: restrict the supply and, pronto!, values will magically rise again!

Third. How are the local council finances fairing? How is indebtment level? Are there projects needing financing? This may be nothing more than a desperate attempt at money grabbing to make some quick cash, either through increased property taxes or simply by selling them.

Fourth. Is there really a juvenile crime problem? If so why isn’t police intervening?

Fifth. Are “dilapidated” buildings really affecting other properties value? Or is the local market perhaps just facing the same problem as most of the Western world?

People will understand these arguments much better than property rights, trust me.

Hopefully they will also understand that once you give the State power to do something for you, you also give it power to do something against you, to quote A.J. Nock. Who assures you that this proposed law won’t morph into something even worse given a few years time?

4

There is nothing morally or economically efficient or that does not violate the property rights of the current owners to steal or force sale of the property. The city can pay the owner to clean up the property but that is a violation of other residents property rights.

the time to act would have been during the sale of the property to the current owners. They could have given the seller money to stipulate in the purchase contract things like the grass has to be less than 1 ft, junk can not be laying outside etc. Now they are stuck. This is the typical issue with force in that those who like to weild it never think that it can be used against them. There are a lot of Obama voters who where satisfied with their health care and wated out of the various wars that feel the same way.

5

Thanks for all the replies.

To answer a few of Kakugo’s questions:

First: This is one concern I have brought up before. How do you define dilapidated? My assumption is either the city council or an appointed board will vote on each property that comes into question. I wonder how long until someone ticks off a board member and suddenly their house appears on the list of places to review…

Second: From what I’ve heard, property values are actually pretty good, and have been stable or on the rise, even during the recent real estate crash. However, I haven’t contacted any realtors so I can’t confirm this is true.

Third: Local finances are fine. We have plenty of money. I’m unaware of any major projects planned.

Fourth: Maybe… There does seem to be an increase in drug-related crimes happening, and that is another issue people are mad about. There are often comments about why the police aren’t doing more. I think two campaign promises will be “I’ll tear down your neighbor’s house!” and “I’ll hire more cops!”

Fifth: That’s a question I’m not able to answer. I’ve read things on this site from time to time about actual property values vs perceived property values. I just don’t know. If my house is next to a completely rundown house, I would expect I would not be able to sell it for the price I would if it were next to a beautiful pond. Whether or not that’s how it should be, it’s probably the case. That didn’t answer your question, though.

The irony is the people most likely to complain about this issue are those who complain about things like healthcare overhaul. They don’t want the government encroaching into their lives. But, it’s not their property, so they are fine with the government encroaching on someone else.

6

“[R]eader thinks the city should begin by giving the owner of a dilapidated property a time limit in which to either clean up the property or tear it down. If the owner fails to do so in the specified time frame, reader thinks the city should claim the property and if the structure can be renovated, donate it to a local charity program. If the property cannot be made usable, it should be cleared and sold, with the proceeds going toward community-minded programs such as youth activities or the fight against crime, says reader.”

What about auctioning it off and giving the money to the owner of the property? Why should the city or some charity or anyone else in the universe get his money?

7

I don’t think there would be a natural rights solution to this. However, I suppose since an ugly estate doesn’t benefit anyone, neighbors might make an agreement to maintain their respective estates to prevent any of their neighbors from keeping their house from becoming an eyesore. It’s by no means a perfect idea, but it’s certainly better than any proposal that involves coercion.