3 ms·

But wait. If the article is correct and the city's population dropped by half, I would expect there to be hundreds if not thousands of legitimately vacated and

by nathanb 12y ago

But wait. If the article is correct and the city's population dropped by half, I would expect there to be hundreds if not thousands of legitimately vacated and abandoned properties. Why would the city go after a slumlord's properties instead, even if he is an absentee landlord known for ill-maintained rental houses? (And it also seems that a city which has dropped so significantly in population would be a poor location for a true slumlord to prey, since I would expect it to be a buyer's market.) I am not sure it's as open-and-shut as you portray it.

webnrrd2k 12y ago
Just a guess (and a rather cynical one): so they could get some money out of the owner. He's the one with the cash, so he's the one to target.
- nathanb 12y ago
  Fair point. Maybe I'm just not good at reading, though...I can't see how the city is benefiting financially from going after Jacquez. The article does suggest the possibility of cronyism -- the city is going after certain property owners to increase the value of properties owned by others who are either bribing city officials or friends of city officials -- but I don't see any legitimate revenue coming into the city because of actions against Jacquez versus going after legitimately vacated properties. In fact, it seems the city would be losing money (having to go to court and potentially pay settlements) by targeting people like him. I don't know anything about anything in either politics and real estate, though.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  no, sadly it reads like a political power play. Someone is the system decided they would use their power in government to fix things and this guy was an easy target. He had some homes, some with problems, but obviously no real means to fight back. See this way to often, people get in office or a position where the public really has little to no real ability to push back. They can do exactly what they did to this guy, take your property or prevent you from using it until you just cannot afford to keep up the fight. If they lose, they will just try later or keep going on someone else. There is no penalty for the majority of abuses by government functionaries, none. People think cops get away with murder, they haven't see jack
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    This pretty much describes how you end up with a Killdozer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA
bsder 12y ago
> But wait. If the article is correct and the city's population dropped by half, I would expect there to be hundreds if not thousands of legitimately vacated and abandoned properties. In that part of the world, unlikely. An uninhabited house very quickly degrades to total uselessness through winters and summers in the Northeastern US (especially winters--pipes freeze, roofs collapse, etc.) So, the only houses that remain standing have people in them. So, somebody is living in these houses almost by definition--quite often for a very cheap amount of money since there isn't exactly high demand and its very important to keep people in the house. And, since the money coming in is very small, repairs are kept to a minimum and a major repair requirement generally results in the house being abandoned. This creates a pretty near perfect storm for the controversy in the article--the houses are near condemnable; the city wants them gone; the owner is making a profit but is absolutely not going to spend large amounts of money on it under any circumstance; the renters certainly don't have anywhere else to go and are happy to be there even with the house being so crappy.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Degrade to total uselessness yes, but not demolish itself. Even in the worst climate an abandoned house does not turn into an empty lot in a few years, or even decades.

by nathanb 12y ago

webnrrd2k 12y ago

Just a guess (and a rather cynical one): so they could get some money out of the owner. He's the one with the cash, so he's the one to target.

nathanb 12y ago
Fair point. Maybe I'm just not good at reading, though...I can't see how the city is benefiting financially from going after Jacquez. The article does suggest the possibility of cronyism -- the city is going after certain property owners to increase the value of properties owned by others who are either bribing city officials or friends of city officials -- but I don't see any legitimate revenue coming into the city because of actions against Jacquez versus going after legitimately vacated properties. In fact, it seems the city would be losing money (having to go to court and potentially pay settlements) by targeting people like him. I don't know anything about anything in either politics and real estate, though.
Shivetya 12y ago
no, sadly it reads like a political power play. Someone is the system decided they would use their power in government to fix things and this guy was an easy target. He had some homes, some with problems, but obviously no real means to fight back. See this way to often, people get in office or a position where the public really has little to no real ability to push back. They can do exactly what they did to this guy, take your property or prevent you from using it until you just cannot afford to keep up the fight. If they lose, they will just try later or keep going on someone else. There is no penalty for the majority of abuses by government functionaries, none. People think cops get away with murder, they haven't see jack
- noir_lord 12y ago
  This pretty much describes how you end up with a Killdozer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA

bsder 12y ago

> But wait. If the article is correct and the city's population dropped by half, I would expect there to be hundreds if not thousands of legitimately vacated and abandoned properties. In that part of the world, unlikely. An uninhabited house very quickly degrades to total uselessness through winters and summers in the Northeastern US (especially winters--pipes freeze, roofs collapse, etc.) So, the only houses that remain standing have people in them. So, somebody is living in these houses almost by definition--quite often for a very cheap amount of money since there isn't exactly high demand and its very important to keep people in the house. And, since the money coming in is very small, repairs are kept to a minimum and a major repair requirement generally results in the house being abandoned. This creates a pretty near perfect storm for the controversy in the article--the houses are near condemnable; the city wants them gone; the owner is making a profit but is absolutely not going to spend large amounts of money on it under any circumstance; the renters certainly don't have anywhere else to go and are happy to be there even with the house being so crappy.

seanflyon 12y ago
Degrade to total uselessness yes, but not demolish itself. Even in the worst climate an abandoned house does not turn into an empty lot in a few years, or even decades.