Thursday, March 8, 2012

To Raze, Or Not To Raze

We would like to know your take on this...

Say there is an old abandoned (former multi-unit rental) property,
that has been taken over by the city, due to neglect on the owner.

An out of town potential buyer puts in a rather low offer.

He claims he plans on renovating the place, and turning it into
a single family home for rent.

City council denied his bid, stating:

and we are sumarizing here...

The city has not had good luck with out of town landlords.

Now, this patricular gentleman already owns a few properties
locally, and are said to be up to code and such.

The neighbors want the structure torn down.

As they've had the "pleasure" of looking at this place
every day just sitting there wasting away and lowering
their own property values.

What are your thoughts?


SuperSteeler said...

Where is it?

Seeds of Doom said...

We have watched absentee slumlords (some from as far away as India) buy local properties off the Internet and then never come to view them, let alone take care of them. They become eyesores, drug dens, and eventually hazards to health and safety. I wholeheartedly agree with City Council that if it isn't owned and managed locally, we shouldn't allow them to become nuisances or worse by "investors" from out of town.

Post a Comment

Thanks for the input. Keep it real.