True Costs.indd

Vacant Properties

The True Costs to Communities

Acknowledgements

The National Vacant Properties Campaign would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency for providing the funding to develop this report. We also thank the many people who

contributed to the study: Margaret Bass, Don Chen, Jennifer Leonard, Lisa Mueller Levy, Cheryl

Little, Barbara McCann, Allie Moravec, Joe Schilling, and Kevin Snyder.

Photo Credits

Cover Photo: Joe Schilling

Inside Photos: Ken LeBlanc

Jennifer Leonard

Joe Schilling

National Vacant Properties Campaign

1707 L Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 www.vacantproperties.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1

Introduction ..........................................................................................................2

Costs of Municipal Services .............................................................................3

Decreased Property Values and Tax Revenues .............................................7

Costs to Homeowners ........................................................................................11

The Spiral of Blight: The Cumulative Impact of Vacant Property ......... 12

Summary ............................................................................................................. 13

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 14

Endnotes ..............................................................................................................18

WHAT ARE VACANT PROPERTIES?

The National Vacant Properties Campaign (NVPC) deﬁnes vacant properties as residential,

commercial, and industrial buildings and vacant lots that exhibit one or both of the

following traits:

§ The site poses a threat to public safety (meeting the deﬁnition of a public

nuisance), or

§ The owners or managers neglect the fundamental duties of property ownership

(e.g., they fail to pay taxes or utility bills, default on mortgages, or carry liens

against the property.)

Vacant properties can include abandoned, boarded-up buildings; unused lots that attract

trash and debris; vacant or under-performing commercial properties known as greyﬁelds

(such as under-leased shopping malls and strip commercial properties); and neglected

industrial properties with environmental contamination known as brownﬁelds. The NVPC

also monitors deteriorating single-family homes, apartments with signiﬁcant housing

code violations, and housing that remains vacant for long periods of time, as these are

indicators of future vacancy and abandonment. State laws and uniform building codes

further reﬁne what constitutes an abandoned building, but these vary from jurisdiction

to jurisdiction. Often these structures have been unoccupied for over a year, are beyond

repair, and pose serious danger to public safety.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 1

Executive Summary

By all accounts, vacant properties are a curse. Just ask anyone who lives next to a drug den, a

boarded-up ﬁretrap or a trash-ﬁlled lot. But abandonment often seems beyond the control of local

ofﬁcials, and it rarely incites a sense of urgency beyond the neighbors on the block where it occurs.

But the evidence shows that vacant properties are an expense that local governments simply

cannot afford – and that the expense grows with every year a property remains vacant or

abandoned. Such properties produce no or little property tax income, but they require plenty of

time, attention, and money:

§ A study in Austin, Texas found that “blocks with unsecured [vacant] buildings had 3.2

times as many drug calls to police, 1.8 times as many theft calls, and twice the number of

violent calls”

as blocks without vacant buildings.

§ More than 12,000 ﬁres break out in vacant structures each year in the US, resulting in $73

million in property damage annually. Most are the result of arson.

§ Over the past ﬁve years, St. Louis has spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100 per household, to

demolish vacant buildings. Detroit spends $800,000 per year

and Philadelphia spends

$1,846,745 per year cleaning vacant lots.

§ A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned

property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.

The aim of this report is to summarize the many and varied costs that vacant and abandoned

properties impose upon communities. It compiles research from across the country quantifying

a wide variety of costs, including city services (nuisance abatement, crime and ﬁre prevention),

decreased property values and tax revenues, as well as the costs born by homeowners and the issue

of the spiral of blight.

This report also includes some good news: communities are ﬁnding ways to recapture the value

in vacant properties, bringing vitality back to once blighted neighborhoods. These communities

are providing valuable lessons for us all, and many of the most successful practices are being

replicated throughout the country.

2 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Introduction

The places with the most well known vacant property problems are older industrial cities in the

Midwest and Northeast. One leading expert has estimated that roughly ten percent of residential

structures are vacant in Camden (NJ), Baltimore, and Detroit.

But with sprawl pushing new

development to the edges of many communities, even growing metropolitan areas such as San

Diego and Las Vegas pay the costs of vacant and abandoned properties. The Brookings Institution

found that in 60 cities with populations over 100,000, there are an average of two vacant buildings

for every 1,000 residents

(see table below).

Region Number of Cities

Reporting Abandoned

Property Data

Average % of Vacant

Land to Total Area

Average Number of

Abandoned Structures

per 1,000 Inhabitants

Northeast 7 8.3 7.47

Midwest 10 11.3 3.16

South 20 17.1 2.98

West 23 15.7 0.62

All Regions 60 14.8 2.63

Source: Pagano & Bowman p. 7

Properties are often abandoned as a result of metropolitan-wide trends, such as sprawling

development, consumer preference, job loss, and demographic shifts. But on an individual level,

the most common reason a property is abandoned is that the cost of maintenance and operation

exceeds the apparent value of the property. This occurs regardless of “whether the market is

intrinsically capable of supporting continued use of the property, or whether market inefﬁciencies,

or inadequate and inaccurate information, lead property owners to that conclusion.”

Most

importantly for cities facing abandonment problems, the longer a property remains abandoned,

the higher the cost of renovation. This leads to continued abandonment even when market

conditions have dramatically improved.

Cities must address the increasing number of vacant properties, not only because of the negative

impact they have on the surrounding community, but because of the numerous costs they impose.

They strain the resources of local police, ﬁre, building, and health departments, depreciate

property values, reduce property tax revenue, attract crime, and degrade the quality of life of

remaining residents. In summary, vacant and abandoned properties “act as a signiﬁcant ﬁscal

drain on already strapped municipalities, requiring disproportionate municipal resources, while

providing little or no tax revenue to municipal coffers.”

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 3

Costs of Municipal Services

Vacant properties have been neglected by their owners, leaving it up to city governments to keep

them from becoming crime magnets, ﬁre hazards, or dumping grounds. In some communities,

attending to vacant and abandoned properties can overwhelm city resources. The police and

ﬁre departments bear the brunt of the responsibility, along with building inspection and code

enforcement units. But most municipalities have staff from several departments addressing the

care of vacant properties: legal ofﬁces, public works, housing, and real estate services all deal with

vacant properties. In Philadelphia, at least ﬁfteen public agencies, not including the police and

ﬁre departments, have a role in the management of public land.

Vacant property management

also demands coordination among local governments, such as county health departments, tax

collectors and assessors.

Crime

Vacant properties often become a breeding ground for crime, tying up an inordinate amount of

police resources. The City of Richmond, VA conducted an analysis of citywide crime data from the

mid-90s. Of all the economic and demographic variables tested, vacant/abandoned properties had

the highest correlation to the incidence of crime.

Another study focusing on crime in abandoned

buildings in Austin, Texas found that crime rates on blocks with open abandoned buildings were

twice as high as rates on matched blocks without open buildings. The survey also found that “41

percent of abandoned buildings could be entered without use of force; of these open buildings, 83

percent showed evidence of illegal use by prostitutes, drug dealers, property criminals, and others.

4 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Even if 90 percent of the crimes prevented are merely displaced to the surrounding area, securing

abandoned buildings appears to be a highly cost-effective crime control tactic for distressed

neighborhoods.”

A crime-prevention tactic that has gotten much attention in recent years is directly related to

vacant, neglected, and abandoned property. According to George Kelling and James Q. Wilson,

“The Broken Window Theory” holds that “If the ﬁrst broken window in a building is not repaired,

then people who like breaking windows will assume that no one cares about the building and more

windows will be broken… The disorder escalates, possibly to serious crime.” Wilson and Kelling

suggest that it is the nature of the physical environment that leads to an increase in criminal

activity.

While the monetary costs of addressing the crime associated with abandoned buildings has not

been calculated, it is clear that vacant properties burden police departments.

Arson and Accidental Fires

In 1999, ﬁreﬁghters in Worcester, Massachusetts entered a vacant cold storage building that was

aﬂame to search for a homeless couple reported to have been in the building. Two ﬁreﬁghters

became disoriented, and others went to their aid. Six became trapped and died in the ﬁre. The

homeless couple had left the premises after the ﬁre began.

The ﬁreﬁghters’ deaths became

national news as one of the major costs of vacant properties became all too clear.

The US Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 ﬁres in vacant structures are reported each

year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Fires are likely in vacant

properties because of poor maintenance, faulty wiring, and debris. In the winter, homeless people

burn candles for light and heat and may even bring in outdoor grills. But more importantly, vacant

buildings are a primary target of arsonists. More than 70 percent of ﬁres in vacant or abandoned

buildings are arson or suspected arson. Such ﬁres strain the resources of ﬁre departments.

Because vacant buildings often contain more open shafts, pits, and holes that can be an invisible

threat to ﬁreﬁghters, the cost of ﬁghting those ﬁres is more than ﬁnancial. The National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that 6,000 ﬁreﬁghters are injured every year in vacant or

abandoned building ﬁres.

Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime

Richmond, Virginia’s focus on vacant and abandoned properties through the Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB)

program resulted in a dramatic drop in crime rates. The initiative launched a coordinated, focused effort in

seven neighborhoods to restore physical livability and improve neighborhood stability, tackling everything

from code enforcement to increasing homeownership rates. Bringing together multiple stakeholders – city

council, city staff, community development corporations, neighborhoods residents, and private developers

– has been an important factor in the program’s success.

In the ﬁrst three years of the initiative, the

targeted neighborhoods experienced a 19 percent reduction in crime compared to a 6 percent reduction

citywide.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 5

Public Nuisances and Health

Vacant and abandoned properties require a disproportionate amount of public maintenance. In

addition to securing buildings against criminal activity, local governments must clean and care

for them to prevent a buildup of trash, illegal dumping, and rodent infestations. In some cases,

abandoned properties contain toxic waste, particularly in the case of abandoned industrial

buildings.

Most municipalities have adopted ordinances that allow them to clean, board, and secure

abandoned buildings. For example, in Roanoke, Virginia, the city has taken a tougher stance on

properties deemed health and safety hazards. If a property is deemed a hazard by the city the

owner is given thirty days to ameliorate the problem. If no action is taken, the city will solicit input

from the neighborhood, do asbestos and lead abatement, solicit demolition bids, raze the house,

and place a lien on the property to try to recoup the demolition costs.

Cities spend signiﬁcant funds on these activities. “In Trenton, New Jersey during the 1990’s, these

dedicated resources (depending on the amount allocated for demolition) ranged from $500,000 to

well over $1 million per year.”

Over a ﬁve-year period, St. Louis spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100

per household, to demolish vacant buildings.

Detroit spends $800,000 each year just to clean

vacant lots.

6 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated

with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in

Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually

on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inﬂation rate,

this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years.

The study only included the costs of

ﬁve out of the ﬁfteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management.

Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. An examination of the St. Paul, Minnesota budget for

maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition

saves $4,697,

the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance

costs over a twenty-year period.

Managing vacant properties ties up the time of municipal employees and the resources of

municipal taxpayers. At the same time, these properties depress the value of other properties and

generate little or no tax revenue themselves.

Lot Clean-Up Programs

Lot clean-up programs offer a means for neighborhoods to reverse the neglect associated with vacant and

abandoned properties with sweat equity. Most often, they are efforts run by community volunteers with

supplies and dumpsters provided by local government. In St. Louis, Missouri, Project Blitz, puts 75,000

volunteers to work every spring on 100 neighborhood “cleaning and greening” projects. This program has

helped clear more than seven million pounds of trash from streets, alleys, and vacant lots.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 7

Decreased Property Values

and Tax Revenues

Vacant properties reduce city tax revenues in three ways: they are often tax delinquent; their

low value means they generate little in taxes; and they depress property values across an entire

neighborhood. Lower property values mean lower tax revenues for local governments.

According to Frank Alexander, Interim Dean and Professor at Emory University Law School and

an expert in housing issues, “failure of cities to collect even two to four percent of property taxes

because of delinquencies and abandonment translates into $3 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues

to local governments and school districts annually.”

Property taxes remain the single largest

source of tax revenue under local control, so this loss of income is substantial.

Lost Tax Revenue

Taxes are often lost on vacant properties because of tax delinquency. Abandoned properties often

become delinquent because the cost of paying taxes on the property may well exceed the value

of the property. If the property goes into tax forfeiture, a common fate for vacant or abandoned

properties, ownership is transferred to the municipality which tries to recover the lost taxes

through the sale of the property. But such sales are problematic for several reasons.

Simply gaining title is a long and difﬁcult process that consumes government resources (see

From the State House to Your House on page 8). Once the title is obtained, cities often auction

off delinquent properties for the amount of the tax lien, but the reclamation of all of the lost

taxes is not guaranteed. One study found that 83 percent of the balance due is lost on foreclosed

properties. When cities try to recover delinquent taxes on parcels where homes have been

demolished, not only are they not able to recover the taxes, but typically the demolition itself was

8 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

costly – in St. Paul, the overall loss to the city for a single demolished house is about $7,789.”

And while tax sales provide a source of income for municipalities, they do not ensure that the

abandoned property will be put to productive use. The properties are sometimes purchased by

speculators without any intent to restore them, and the process fails to assemble marketable

parcels of land.

Even if the taxes are being paid, those taxes don’t amount to much. In St. Paul, a vacant lot

produces $1,148 in property taxes over 20 years; an unrenovated but inhabited home generates

$5,650, and a rehabilitated property generates $13,145.

From the State House to Your House: Reform of Tax

Foreclosure Laws as a Tool for Community Revitalization

One of the ﬁrst barriers cities face in rehabilitating vacant properties is simply gaining control over them.

Michigan’s legislature responded with Public Act 123, passed in 1999. PA 123 amended the General Property

Tax Act to streamline the system for returning tax-delinquent properties to productive use. More efﬁcient

than previous foreclosure laws, which could take up to six years to deliver property to new ownership, PA 123

enables county and state governments to reclaim properties in two years with a clear title judgment.

The

property is titled to either the county or the state. The law helps local governments move quickly, before

a vacant building deteriorates or starts to spread blight. The law also created a fund, paid for through

property sales, that helps local governments manage foreclosed land.

Genesee County, home to Flint, has done the most to take advantage of PA 123. The Genesee County

Treasurer’s Ofﬁce and the Genesee County Land bank, created in 2002, work in tandem to prevent

foreclosure and bring tax reverted properties back into productive use. Since 2002, the Land Bank has

acquired more than 4,400 residential, commercial, and industrial properties, from which almost 600 will

have been demolished by December 2005, and 248 have been transferred to side yards.

The Land Bank

is completing a $3.8 million mixed-use redevelopment in downtown Flint, over 40 housing renovations

are completed or underway, and they continue to assemble parcels for additional development projects.

The county has also received $200,000 from the U.S. EPA to complete environmental inspections on

commercial, industrial, and residential properties. The process is a collaborative one, pulling in partners

from a diverse array of local, regional, state, and national agencies.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 9

Lower Property Values

Vacant properties generate little in taxes – but, perhaps more importantly, they rob surrounding

homes and businesses of their value. In a 2001 study, researchers from Philadelphia found that

houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.

Properties within 150 to 300 feet experienced a loss of $6,819 and those within 300 to 450 feet

experienced a loss of $3,542 (see diagram below).

Philadelphia researchers also found “that all else

being equal, houses on blocks with abandonment

sold for $6,715 less than houses on blocks with no

abandonment.”

A University of Minnesota study also evaluated the

ﬁscal beneﬁts the city of St. Paul would receive if it

renovated abandoned housing. The study found that

vacant properties negatively affected neighborhood

property values, reducing the city’s tax base. While

a renovated property did not negatively affect

surrounding property values, demolishing a vacant

building and leaving a vacant lot in its stead led to

“$26,397 in lost property tax revenue over a twenty-

year period.”

These lower property values represent a hit in the

pocketbook for both homeowners and the city. But

a focused effort to bring vacant properties back can

restore value – and taxes – for the city.

450 feet

300 feet

150 feet

-$7,627

-$6,819

-$3,542

Abandoned

Property

Temple University Center for Public Policy & Eastern

Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight Free

Philadelphia: A Public Private Strategy to Create and

Enhance Neighborhood Value.” Philadelphia, 2001.

10 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Recapturing the Value in Vacant Properties

Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB) program (see Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime on page

4) has made a signiﬁcant impact that goes beyond targeted neighborhoods. Housing prices within the

NiB neighborhoods appreciated at a rate 9.9 percent per year faster than the citywide average. Prices

in non-targeted blocks, but within 5,000 feet, increased at an annual rate 5.3 percent faster.

The nearly

400 housing units built or renovated through the program equal an 11 percent increase in the number of

occupied homes and apartments in the targeted neighborhoods.

This increase in property values and sales generated growth in tax revenue. The Federal Reserve estimates

that the aggregate value for tax assessments in the targeted areas increased 44 to 63 percent.

And over

the next 20 years, it’s estimated that NiB-generated appreciation of single-family homes in the targeted

areas will result in an additional $14.7 million in property tax revenues (in 1997/98 dollars.)

In communities with many vacant lots and a falling population, immediate rebuilding may not be an option.

Cleaning up vacant lots and seeding them with grass and plantings can help increase neighborhood

property values. A recent report by Susan Wachter, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

validates what “clean and green” advocates have known for some time – that investment in greening

translates not only into increased quality of life beneﬁts, but also into higher property values.

The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society coordinated a vacant land management system with the New

Kensington Community Development Corporation that includes clearing abandoned lots of debris, planting

grass and trees, regular cleaning and mowing, and transferring parcels to adjacent homeowners as private

side yards. Previously, many of the lots in the New Kensington neighborhood had been havens for illegal

activity.

Wachter’s study, which analyzed more than

3,000 home sales from 1980 to 2003, found that

planting trees within 50 feet of houses increased

home prices by 9 percent (approximately $3,400)

and that sales prices increased as much as 30

percent when homes were located near vacant lots

that had been “cleaned and greened.” In the New

Kensington area this translates to a $4 million

gain in property value through tree plantings and

a $12 million gain through lot improvements.”

Philadelphia has seen more than a ﬁnancial payoff

from their efforts. By greening many abandoned sites in the same area, the lots have been converted into

“green corridors.” To further the environmental beneﬁts, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has added

a stormwater management component to the program, which has been highlighted by the U.S. EPA as a

national model for reclaiming and managing vacant urban lots.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 11

Costs to Homeowners

Living in a neighborhood with many vacant and abandoned properties exacts many costs on

homeowners. As discussed above, it leads to decreased property values, which can devastate a

family’s ﬁnancial security. When neighborhood populations decline and properties become vacant,

a smaller number of residents bear a greater proportion of the city’s tax burden. This fact is

particularly relevant in lower-income neighborhoods and among residents without the resources

or the desire to leave their neighborhood. And there are other, less easily measured costs of owning

a home in an area with vacant properties – costs that are both ﬁscal and psychological.

Higher Insurance Premiums

The proximity of vacant and abandoned properties makes obtaining homeowner’s insurance,

mortgages, and loans for home improvements more difﬁcult. Insurance companies pay attention

to what is going on in a neighborhood; this can mean increased premiums or even policy

cancellations for those homeowners living close to an abandoned property. Determining how

vacant and abandoned properties inﬂuence the cost of homeowners insurance is difﬁcult at

best. There are a number of variables involved in the setting of premiums and many insurance

companies hold their underwriting manuals to be proprietary. An interview with an insurance

agent in Washington, DC representing a national insurance company revealed that the presence

of a “high hazard” property (which includes condemned properties) within forty feet of a solid

masonry building and 100 feet of a non-masonry building would lead to a cancellation or non-

renewal of an insurance policy.

Poorer Quality of Life

Vacant properties degrade quality of life for remaining residents. Genesee County Treasurer

Daniel T. Kildee tells the story of a Flint resident. “I met a woman who bought her house a decade

ago, so proud to be a new homeowner. She took good care of her home and her family, and has

seen the properties on both sides of her home burn and sit abandoned for many years. Finally

under our program (see From the State House to Your House on page 8), we took control of the

adjacent properties and have scheduled them for demolition and to transfer to her as part of

our side-lot program. Sadly, our program was not in place for many years as she watched the

neighborhood slowly slip away. This is a woman that saw her single greatest ﬁnancial investment

become valueless - not due to the condition of her home, but due to the neglect of the property

that surrounds her. She only had two choices: stay and maintain her home and make her mortgage

payments, or abandon the property and ruin her credit and her home. That is a story that has

repeated itself in our community a thousand times over, with a far less happy ending.”

With abandoned buildings comes social fragmentation. Individuals who live in communities

with an increasing number of vacant buildings begin to feel isolated, weakening the community

as a whole. A large number of vacant buildings in a neighborhood symbolizes that no one

cares, increasing the likelihood that property values will continue to decline and that further

abandonment will set in. In the case of vacant properties, the problem is out in the open, for all to

see. The aesthetic impact of abandoned properties, while not easily quantiﬁed in dollars, is another

cost.

12 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

The Spiral of Blight:

The Cumulative Impact

of Vacant Property

The costs imposed by a single vacant building are not contained. If left alone, that building can

trigger a costly spiral of blight. With each arson or lot ﬁlling up with garbage comes further

incentive for the remaining residents and businesses to ﬂee. To stem these problems it is

important for municipalities to address the issue early.

In Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing, the authors describe the

issue of vacant and abandoned property as a self-feeding problem. “In blighted neighborhoods

that adjoin abandoned ones, existing homeowners face stagnating or declining property values.

Unscrupulous real estate agents play on these fears by inducing existing residents to sell cheaply

in order to maximize proﬁts at the expense of incoming families. Although this property is

still generating revenues for the city, the combination of high resale prices and high tax rates

discourage maintenance of such structures. In this way, communities in transition start to look

shabby and run-down. Businesses see their proﬁts dwindle and are unlikely to remain in such

locales.”

Part of the reason abandonment becomes contagious is that “it makes it harder for

people to sell their homes or because it leads banks to lower appraisals or deny loans entirely on

blocks with abandoned properties.”

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 13

Summary

Vacant and abandoned properties are burning a hole in the pockets of local governments,

businesses, and individuals. The root of the problem may seem far beyond the control of local

governments. The vacancies are often a result of larger forces, such as corporate decisions to

transfer jobs overseas, or developers’ decisions to invest in sprawling new homes far on the urban

fringe. But taking no action simply allows the problem to grow worse.

The places that have done the most to end the ﬁnancial drain of vacant properties are those that

recognize their value. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society provides an idea of the positive

returns cities can expect by investing in a comprehensive program for dealing with vacant and

abandoned property. PHS estimates that, over the course of twenty years, the City of Philadelphia

would receive $1.54 in beneﬁts for every $1.00 in costs ($158.7 million in beneﬁts, $106.7 million

investment). This ﬁgure stands before even considering the additional beneﬁts that may “accrue

to families and private businesses if the elimination of vacant land results in an increase in the

value of their property, a decrease in insurance rates, or a greater interest by businesses to locate

in a more attractive city.”

Many cities and counties across the country are looking for strategies that help them capture the

value reported by the programs discussed in this report. While some communities have yet to take

the ﬁrst step, others are enacting their own programs to different degrees of success. Sharing

experiences and knowledge – what works and what does not – is the role of the National Vacant

Properties Campaign, providing a forum to arm communities, civic leaders, and policymakers

with information that can embolden them to take action. The Campaign hopes to encourage

communities and researchers to seek solutions to these and other outstanding problems relating

to the scope and cost of vacant properties:

§ Many communities don’t have a reliable accounting system to track of the number of

vacant properties that exist within their borders.

§ Many of the ﬁnancial costs incurred by a jurisdiction, including demolition, ﬁre and

nuisance abatement, are not routinely tracked.

§ While anecdotal evidence abounds regarding homeowners losing their insurance because

of their proximity to an abandoned house, determining the actual cost is difﬁcult.

§ Much of the data available about the costs of vacant properties is found from a variety of

sources and is difﬁcult to obtain.

Please contact the Campaign to share the experiences in your community.

14 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Bibliography

Accordino, John and Gary T. Johnson. “Addressing the Vacant and Abandoned Property

Problem.” Journal of Urban Affairs 22.3 (2000): 301-315.

Accordino, John, Galster, George, and Peter Tatian. “The Impacts of Targeted Public and

Nonproﬁt Investment on Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: The Federal Reserve

Bank of Richmond, 2005.

Alexander, Frank. “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development” Local Initiatives

Support Collaborative, 2000.

Anderson, Laurie M., Scrimshaw, Susan C., Fullilove, Mindy T., Fielding, Jonathon E., and

the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. “The Community Guide’s Model for

Linking the Social Environment to Health.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine

24.3S (2003): 12-20.

Arsen, David. “Property Tax Assessment Rate and Residential Abandonment: Policy for

New York City.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 51.3 (1992): 361

Bowman, Ann O’M. and Michael A. Pagano. “Transforming America’s Cities: Policies and

Conditions of Vacant Land.” Urban Affairs Review 35.4 (2000): 559-581.

Bright, Elise. “TOADS: Instruments of Urban Revitalization.” Managing Capital Resources

for Central City Revitalization. Eds. F. Wagner, T. Joder, and A. Mumphrey Jr. New York:

Garland Press, 2000.

Bright, Elise. “Making Business a Partner in Redeveloping Abandoned Central City Property: Is

Proﬁt a Realistic Possibility?” Federal Reserve System’s Third Community Affairs Research

Conference. 27-28 March 2003.

Colvin, Ashley, Fergusson, Ian, and Heather Phillips. “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma

of Vacant Housing.” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in

Public Policy at the College of William Mary for the International City/County Management

Association, 2000.

Cramer, John. “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses.” The

Roanoke Times 3 August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>.

Doyle, James. “One House at a Time.” Journal of Housing and Community Development 58.1

(2002):14-17.

Duhigg, Charles. “Tax Auctions Rarely Deliver a Dream.” The Washington Post, 19 July 2003.

“EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia.” U.S. EPA, 2 August

2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/

3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument>

Farris, J. Terrence. “The Barriers to Using Urban Inﬁll Development to Achieve Smart Growth.”

Housing Policy Debate 12.1 (2001): 1-30.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 15

Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kin Lam. “Pay Now or Pay More

Later: St. Paul’s Experience in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing.” CURA Reporter (April

1998): 12-15.

Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kim Lam. The Fiscal Impact of

the St. Paul HOUSES TO HOMES Program. Neighborhood Planning for Community

Revitalization, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. <http://

www.npcr.org/reports/npcr1055/npcr1055.html, accessed June 17, 2003>.

Greenberg, Michael R., Popper, Frank J., and Bernadette M. West. “The TOADS: A New

American Urban Epidemic.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25.3 (1990): 435-453.

Greenberg, Michael, Popper, Frank, Schneider, Dona, and Bernadette West. “Community

Organizing to Prevent TOADS in the United States.” Community Development Journal

28.1 (1993): 55-65.

“Greening boosts home prices – here’s the proof,” 24 February 2005 <http:www.upenn.edu/

pennnews/current/2005/022405/research.html>

Grow Smart Rhode Island. “The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island

– Executive Summary.” Prepared by H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. & Planimetrics, LLP,

1999.

Hillier, Amy E., Culhane, Dennis P., Smith, Tony E., and Dana C. Tomlin. “Predicting Housing

Abandonment with the Philadelphia Neighborhood Information System.” Journal of

Urban Affairs 25.1 (2003): 91-105.

Hughes, Mark Alan, and Rebekah Cook-Mack. “Vacancy Reassessed.” Philadelphia: Public/Private

Ventures, 1999.

IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Fireﬁghter Fatalities in the Unites States in 1999.” National Fire

Data Center, 2000.

Jakle, John and David Wilson. “Derelict Landscapes: The Wasting of America’s Built

Environment.” 1992.

Kildee, Dan. “Bringing Flint Back to Life.” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003).

Keenan, Paul, Lowe, Stuart, and Sheila Spencer. “Housing Abandonment in Inner Cities

– The Politics of Low Demand for Housing.” Housing Studies 14.5 (1999): 703-716.

Kromer, John. “Serious About Neighborhoods: Ten Success Strategies for Philadelphia’s

Residential Communities.” 2003 <http://neighborhoodrecovery.com>.

Kromer, John. “Vacant-Property Policy and Practice: Baltimore and Philadelphia.” Washington, DC:

Discussion paper prepared for Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy

and CEOs for Cities, 2002.

Leigh, Nancey Green. “The State Role in Urban Land Redevelopment” Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

MacKenzie, James J., Dower C. Roger, and Donald D.T. Chen. “The Going Rate: What it Really

Costs to Drive.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1992.

16 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Mallach, Alan. “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment.”

Prepared for seminar hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001.

“Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System.” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March

2005 <http://thelandbank.org>.

“New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted.” American

Re. 16 June 2003 <http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_

abandonedbuildings>.

Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>.

Pagano, Michael A. and Ann O’M Bowman. “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource.” Washington,

DC: Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000.

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia

Neighborhoods: Cost Beneﬁt Analysis.” Philadelphia, 1999.

Ress, David. “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program

Spurs Changes in Several Areas of Richmond.” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005.

Richmond Lisc. “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community

Investments.” Richmond, 2005.

Scaﬁdi, Benjamin, Schill, Michael, Wachter, Susan, and Dennis Culhane. “An Economic

Analysis of Housing Abandonment.” Journal of Housing Economics, 7 (1998): 287-303.

Schilling, Joseph. “Vacant Properties: Revitalization Strategies.” IQ Reports 34.3 (ICMA,

2002).

Schilling, Joseph M. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Where Broken Windows Meet

Smart Growth.” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association,

2002.

Schilling, Joseph M., and Naomi Friedman. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties:

Richmond, Virginia Case Study.” Washington, DC: International City/County

Management Association, 2002.

Setterﬁeld, Mark. “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform.” Hartford,

CT: Trinity College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997.

Spelman, William. “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice

21.5 (1993): 481-495.

Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight

Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value.”

Philadelphia, 2001.

“Urban Insurance Issues.” 2003. Insurance Information Institute. 11 July 2003 <http://www.

iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/urban/content.print/>.

“Vacant buildings: background: conditions.” Community Environmental Resource Program

(CERP). <http://stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 17

Wachter, Susan. “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identiﬁcation

and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study.” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University

of Pennsylvania, 2005.

Wallace, Rodrick. “Urban Desertiﬁcation, Public Health and Public Disorder: Planned

Shrinkage, Violent Death, Substance Abuse and AIDS in the Bronx.” Social Science

Medicine 31.7 (1990): 801-813.

Wilgoren, Jodi. “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal.” The New York Times, 7 July 2002.

Wilson, David & Margulis, Harry. “Spatial Aspects of Housing Abandonment in the 1990s: The

Cleveland Experience.” Housing Studies 9.4 (1994): 493-511.

Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. “Making Neighborhoods Safe.” Atlantic Monthly February

1989.

18 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities

Endnotes

William Spelman, “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice 21.5 (1993): 481.

“New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted,” American Re, 16 June 2003

<http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_abandonedbuildings>.

Jodi Wilgoren, “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal,” The New York Times, 7 July 2002.

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia Neighborhoods: Cost Beneﬁt

Analysis,” Philadelphia, 1999: 17.

Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, “Blight Free

Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value,” Philadelphia, 2001.

Alan Mallach, “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment,” Prepared for seminar

hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001: 1.

Michael A. Pagano and Ann O’M Bowman, “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource,” Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000: 6.

Mallach 5.

Mallach 4.

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17.

Connie Bawcum (consultant formerly with Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom), 12 August 2003.

Spelman 481.

James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Making Neighborhoods Safe,” Atlantic Monthly February 1989.

Joseph M. Schilling and Naomi Friedman, “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Richmond, Virginia Case

Study,” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002: 27.

Richmond Lisc, “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community Investments,” Richmond, 2005: 5.

IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Fireﬁghter Fatalities in the United States in 1999.” National Fire Data

Center, 2000: A-34

American Re

Mark Setterﬁeld, “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform,” Hartford, CT: Trinity

College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997: 5.

John Cramer, “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses,” The Roanoke Times 3

August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>.

Mallach 4, footnote 2

“Vacant buildings: background: conditions,” Community Environmental Resource Program (CERP), <http://

stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>. CERP is an environmental clearinghouse for the St. Louis area

funded by EPA and run under the auspices of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, a regional planning agency.

Wilgoren

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17. The study deﬁned vacant properties as “unmanaged residential lots

under one acre without structures or use for billboards, surface parking lots, or parks.”

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17-18. The departments are the Department of Licenses and Inspections,

the Streets Department, the Redevelopment Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and the

Philadelphia Housing Authority. These costs include ofﬁce administration as well as the actual cleaning and sealing of

vacant lots.

Edward G. Goetz, Kristin Cooper, Bret Thiele, and Hin Kin Lam, “Pay Now or Pay More Later: St. Paul’s Experience

in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing,” CURA Reporter (April 1998): 14.

Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>.

Frank Alexander, E-mail to Laura Reilly.

Frank Alexander, “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development,” Local Initiatives Support

Collaborative, 2000: 3.

Goetz, Pay Now 18.

Goetz, Pay Now 19.

Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 19

“Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System,” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March 2005 <http://

thelandbank.org>.

Robert Beckley (Genesee County Land Bank, Genesee Institute Director), 18 August 2005.

Temple University 22.

Goetz, Pay Now 19.

John Accordino, George Galster, and Peter Tatian, “The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonproﬁt Investment on

Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2005: 37.

David Ress, “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program Spurs Changes in

Several Areas of Richmond,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005.

Richmond Lisc 5.

Accordino Addendum.

Susan Wachter “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identiﬁcation

and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study,” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of

Pennsylvania, 2005: 14, 16.

“EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia,” 2 August

2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/

3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument>

Al Sisco, Gary Young Insurance (a Nationwide insurance afﬁliate) in Washington DC, telephone

conversation, 8 July 2003.

Dan Kildee, “Bringing Flint Back to Life,” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003): 1.

Ashley Colvin, Ian Fergusson, and Heather Phillips, “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant

Housing,” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William

Mary for The International City/County Management Association, 2000: 7.

Temple 22.

Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 26-27.

Frank Alexander,

Emory University*

Carl Anthony,

Ford Foundation

Charles Bartsch,

Northeast Midwest Institute

Noreen Beatley,

The Enterprise Foundation

Lavea Brachman,

Delta Institute

Kim Burnett,

The Surdna Foundation

Carlton Eley,

U.S. EPA, Community and Environment Division

Mindy Fullilove,

Columbia University

Peter Harnik,

Trust for Public Land

Rick Haughey,

Urban Land Institute

Dan Kildee,

Treasurer, Genesee County Michigan*

John Kromer,

Fels Institute of Government

Alan Mallach,

National Housing Institute

Joseph Molinaro,

National Association of Realtors

Rachel Morello-Frosch,

Brown University

Anne Pasmanick,

National Neighborhood Coalition

john powell,

Ohio State University

Joseph Reilly,

JPMorgan Chase

Jim Rooney,

CEOs for Cities

Carey Shea,

Habitat for Humanity-New York City

Diane Silva-Martinez,

City of San Diego

Susie Sinclair-Smith,

Fannie Mae Foundation

Israel Small,

City of Savannah, Georgia

Heather Smith,

Congress for the New Urbanism

Jeff Soule,

American Planning Association

Jennifer Vey,

Brookings Institution, Center on Urban

and Metropolitan Policy

*afﬁliations used for identiﬁcation purposes only

The National Vacant Properties Campaign’s mission is to help communities prevent abandonment and reclaim

abandoned and vacant properties. The Campaign focuses on properties — homes, factories, stores, and vacant lots

— that are not legally occupied, show signs of neglect or pose a public nuisance.

The Campaign is pursuing four core activities:

• developing a national network of vacant property practitioners and experts;

• providing tools and research;

• developing persuasive arguments for property reclamation; and

• building the capacity of local, regional, and national practitioners and decision-makers through technical

assistance and training.

The National Vacant Properties Campaign is a collaboration of four leading national organizations, Smart Growth

America (SGA), Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (MI), and

the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The Campaign is funded by the generous

support of the Fannie Mae Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Ford Foundation, and the

Surdna Foundation.

For more information and to get involved, visit the web site at http://www.vacantproperties.org or write the

Campaign’s director at jleonard@smartgrowthamerica.org.

National Vacant Properties Campaign Advisory Committee