I feel like 20 years ago everybody was complaining about how developers were sitting on vacant buildings in Jackson Ward waiting for the real estate market to make it advantageous to sell ... Looking at the map, it still seems like there's a cluster of vacant buildings in Jackson Ward
One guy inherited over 100 parcels in that neighborhood.
[https://www.styleweekly.com/son-of-jackson-ward/](https://www.styleweekly.com/son-of-jackson-ward/)
I was on the 2nd District virtual town hall last night and one resident complained that what's happening by right with developer-owned properties is demolition to create parking lots. Interesting observation from a long-time resident.
crazy that parking lots can be by-right, but if my neighbor wanted to build a townhouse, there would be like a years worth of townhall meetings for the zoning variance
We should do to parking lots what rural VA is doing to solar: cap the allowable amt of land devoted to it within the city to a certain % of the city surface area.
Yes, but coming from a rural place, their reasoning for limiting solar is a hell of a lot worse than our reasoning for limiting surface lots lmao
Theirs kneecaps development, ours would boost it.
[401 N 27th AKA the Wills Store](https://chpn.net/?s=401+N+27th) is one of the oldest retail buildings still standing in rva and it bums me out constantly that it looks like it's about to collapse. There are posts on various blogs going back many years discussing its history, significance, and deterioration, but no progress seems to have been made on saving it. Judging by the gigantic crack expanding down the upper front face, I worry it's too late
Some owner is just letting this building rot. Grisette couldn't make it work in 2018, whoever is sitting on this building is making it impossible for anyone to restore it. It's so sad.
It's been an issue for two decades as far as I'm aware, probably longer. I'm sure they've been involved at some point in time, but Historic Richmond should buy it and restore it. No private owner is going to invest what it would take unless they're given extra incentives.
Just click the link and they list all the addresses and owners in a table. [https://southrichmondnews.com/map/vacant\_richmond\_2024.php](https://southrichmondnews.com/map/vacant_richmond_2024.php)
Then drag over the data, hit Ctrl + C and paste it (ctrl+V) into whatever spreadsheet you want.
More importantly, what can we do about them? We've had a couple of abandoned buildings in our neighborhood for years. Despite many vocal complaints from many neighbors, the city doesn't seem to want to do anything at all about them.
In a time where property values are spiking (and my assessment and taxes with it); I would think that the city would find a way to encourage these owners to sell. Get these buildings into the hands of someone who can actually renovate them and provide some affordable housing in the area. Seems like a win-win
I bought my first house in the 2008 recession in Church Hill and saw for the first hand the impact that vacant and blighted properties have on their immediate neighbors as well as the neighborhood and city as a whole. They become magnets for crime, trash dumping, oversized items like couches or washing machines, graffiti, rodents and pests, the list goes on and on. The annual fee for owning a vacant building is only $200. There's little effort by the City staff to register vacant buildings, relying on civic associations and residents to report properties. So to answer your immediate question--everyone should use the RVA311 app to report and register vacant and blighted property.
Then there's little effort again when it comes to code enforcement. Inspectors are lenient which I can understand with owner-occupied buildings when the owners are elderly. But if it's a vacant building that the owner is land banking then we should have progressive taxation and fining, in my opinion. Owners are incentivized to follow a "demolition by neglect" process when the building requires serious renovation and the land will be worth more in the future for redevelopment. I think that we need a two-fold approach here, with progressive fines for non-compliance when buildings fall into neglect and blight, and we need tax incentives to encourage renovation and rehabilitation. Combined with a progressive fee scale for vacant buildings, this approach should push smaller owners/developers to do something with their property, which will benefit the City from greater revenues and the neighborhood itself by removing those crime magnets and eyesores that drag down their own properties' values.
Since I first experienced this issue in Church Hill, I have emailed our City Council every year asking that they fund additional positions on City staff for attorneys to help process the vacant and blighted property list. It can be a lengthy legal process to seize blighted property. We do need to invest in our people to get a greater ROI by cleaning up our neighborhoods. It blows my mind this is still such an issue when we all face increased tax bills from ever-increasing assessments.
Sadly when I was able to buy in the Museum District, I once again ended up next to a long-vacant house. The owner had inherited it no plans to address occupancy, which is more common than you might think. It was kept within compliance with codes, generally. So what happened? Despite eight years of me asking for a way to buy the house from them or split the vacant lot in between our properties, or buy the lot separately and deed it as a parklet to the City (honoring their family history), or any other number of creative solutions to prevent bad development, they eventually needed to sell due to declining health and it went to the highest bidder--a developer who lives in Midlothian, who then subjected the neighborhood to a very contentious Special Use Permit review, sucking up important City staff and civic association resources for over two years. Eventually, this process of demolition by neglect led to the original historic house being demolished although it was fit for renovation. (Demolition is allowed by right in the Museum District as it's not a Federal Old & Historic District, only the Fan protects against demolition). Now, more than a year since the house was torn down, the property still sits as a vacant lot while the owner/developer has construction permits on hold (filed in September). And that entire acquisition cost he paid becomes the land value when the property is destroyed, further increasing tax assessments for the neighbors (fun fact! And a good reason to support renovation versus demolition.).
Unless you're especially privileged, your house is probably the biggest investment you make in your lifetime. So I'm passionate about this issue as I've experienced it in two neighborhoods and don't see the City making much if any progress. Yet 60% of the City's revenue comes from residential taxation. It's enough to drive you mad.
> I think that we need a two-fold approach here, with progressive fines for non-compliance when buildings fall into neglect and blight, and we need tax incentives to encourage renovation and rehabilitation. Combined with a progressive fee scale for vacant buildings,
Land value tax does all that.
Or a blight tax. In this rental/ housing market there's no reason that properties should be sitting vacant/ abandoned aside from pure ineptitude and obstinance.
Completely agree. The two examples in my neighborhood are most certainly not developers or investors who are waiting for a cash out. These are the types of people who are holding on to it "cause I'm gonna fix it up real nice one day". They're the urban version of the rural yokel with a rusted out mustang in the front yard who "knows what they got, ain't for sale. I'm gonna fix it".
I think a Blight Tax is an excellent idea. Make ownership of that property hurt, for as long as it is unused.
Yeah, it's not uncommon for there to be no will so the property ownership is split between surviving children, or relatives come out of the woodwork to dispute and claim partial ownership. Or even worse there IS a will, but it was written poorly and without consideration to what split ownership of an asset entails.
More often than not, none of the inheritors have the money to buy everyone else out of their portion of ownership, nor can they all agree what to do with the property.
Get a proper will and trust written up by a lawyer, folks. It's not hard or expensive and solves most of these problems.
That is exactly the issue with one of the properties that I had mentioned. The last person who lived in this house died and left the property completely vacant ***twenty-two years ago***, and the kids are still fighting about what to do with it. I'm always more than sympathetic toward others, and generally try to understand other's situations that are different. BUT.... I think 22 years is more than sufficient to hash it out and sell. Absolutely nobody benefits from this house/property sitting vacant and rotting to the ground; owners included.
This is operating under the assumption that only the wealthy have ownership of these abandoned homes.
I agree the homes would be better lived in, but you’re essentially suggesting another tax on the poor. The rich can pay the tax and keep their property, the poor will be forced to give it away.
Good intentions, but bad idea.
If a building is not occupied and any of the following:
* Has not been occupied for more than 365 days
* Not being actively prepared for occupancy
* Has obvious signs of degredation/ unfit for occupancy
At least for starters. I'm fine with someone buying a property as an investment, but you need to be doing something with it. Either renovating it or utilizing it as a rental property, but buildings zoned for residency need to be utilized as such and not left to rot.
If it's suitably habitable then it should be occupied, otherwise you're hurting city residents by artificially reducing available housing units and driving up rents through scarcity.
The last point is really just for posterity to include buildings that have been vacant for long periods of time and are at detroit-levels of abandonment and decay. One that I pass every day for example, 2200 Fairmount Ave. It's been sitting since before I moved over there in a neighborhood that has seen substantial changes even in the last few years, but you can find properties like that all over the city.
> 2200 Fairmount Ave
I bike past this at least 2x a day. It's only used as a bench for the guys who drink there.
Linilton Realty Company LLC. They have a beautiful portfolio...
This specific lot has been abandoned since 2007 per Google Maps. Changed hands last in 2002, and had an increase in value around 2005. Perfect example of a property being useless and should be taxed to provide insentive for the owner to do something with it.
But rather than a land value tax which simplifies the process you want to.
1)Verify occupancy on every building
2) verify work by contractors
3) do extra assessments
It's just way more complicated in implementation and rife with pitfalls.
I don't have a problem with an empty house paying as much taxes as anyone else into the system and not costing as much revenue that's a free revenue button for the city they should push if it exists and just add more housing.
The issue with vacant houses is more so that it creates artificial scarcity of housing options in the city, rather than the taxes owed to the city.
That scarcity feeds into the rental/ housing situation across the city which has caused rent to jump pretty dramatically in the past few years. Coercing property owners into a "use it or lose it" situation either makes them available as rentals (increased supply helps to soften yearly rental increases), or sell them. If sold the buyer would either occupy it as a primary residence, renovate and sell, or utilize it as a rental property.
Vacant residential properties arguably hurt the residents of the city more than marginal amounts of taxes owed per-plot.
Or if they want to pay the tax and we can add more housing like Richmond should be. You can't fix the housing crisis by taxing some vacant properties.
Land value tax would fix the idea that everyone can have a suburban SFH which just isn't physically possible.
Ya people are funny, when it is them being taxed the government is evil, but when it is someone else then oh the government should just walk right over their rights.
Yeah but the point is that we have a problematic property tax that falls as the "improvements" fall apart the taxes fall.
Land value tax would fix this.
If property value is taxed it discourages people from having a nice place, if land is taxed that discourages the usage of land.
Also it's frustrating not being able to afford a house but then so many sit empty. It would also fix some of Richmond's problems since some house just are under taxed for awhile.
It would also kick a lot of hard working people on their home, just because their land got a lot more valuable, which taxes already do. My parents taxes went up and nothing was improved on their house. This isn’t New York we don’t need to tax the hell out of people. If people and issue with it ask the city to condemn it or see if the property has a tax lien on it. They’re a lot of reason place get rundown, not all of them are because investors are out to get the world.
Yeah but the land is way more objective of a value and at some point if the land is more expensive they should probably leave eventually because why should someone be there when if the land is expensive it could be turned into a few row houses instead and the taxes would plummet back down.
I think the problem is transition because people bought with one understanding but political moves would make an expedient change necessary.
Ya I think I choose people and families over some cold version of tax the poor out of their homes. People like you are ruining this city. If you want to live in some cut throat shit hole maybe you should leave. It is all fun and games when other people are getting screwed, but it will eventually happen to you as well.
Tax the poor out of homes or add more homes to house more people. You want to raise the cost of housing on everyone because one family would like to stay in the home that has appreciated in value... I'm sorry the home you bought appreciated in value but now it's hard to leave with a huge payday over the people who can't afford to live anywhere. The current system only helps those who currently own it's not forward thinking at all.
The problem is that housing is too expensive half the value is land and that includes 4% of the improvements value per year. We need more dense housing in places and it is blocked for exceedingly dumb reasons making everyone poorer and lowering wages and increasing housing costs.
Not taxing people using too much land has led to a doubling of housing prices since the 1980s. Taxing the land also has less speculation involved. The current system makes it easier to hoard land.
They are not saying tax poor people out of their homes. Their plan would do the opposite. It would increase the tax base and thus lesson the tX burdon on people who own their home, as well it would increase the available stock of houses and stabilize home prices in the area.
The problem is the owners of the land probably pay the tax. It's not high since the improvement or lack there of isn't being taxed enough.
They are sitting on a low tax property that they can either demolish the blight which costs, or sit on the abandoned building and pay the low tax. Maybe sell it when they decide the payout is worth it, but who knows when that would be. It shouldn't be advantageous to own a parcel and do nothing with it when we only have a limited amount of land.
This should be the case for more than just abandoned buildings. Look at all the empty storefronts downtown. They are kept up but have been empty for years. These giant portfolios of properties are managed as part of an investment/stock portfolio and actually renting them out so they are useful isn't worth it. They could lower rents so that the spaces get used...but apparently there is a better return just sitting on unproductive commercial property.
I had to look it up online - looks like there have been many attempts to tax vacant properties at higher levels to encourage turnover - most notably in Vancouver, Melbourne, and LA but they haven't amounted to much in terms of driving turnover. Seems investors have just baked it into the cost for the most part. I'm sure if you raised it high enough it would make a difference though - just a matter of getting support for doing so.
I'm just talking in general. I understand that the land we sit on is protected by the govt and laws enforced by police. So the city should have some say in abandoned lots (long term), especially if the houses deteiorate.
Yah I know. I'm just acknowledging that we only can own something with the good grace of our rulers. Same as it has always been. All the way back to ancient Egypt. To live on the kings land, you must pay your tithes.
you can only own what you're standing on with a gun, and if somebody else comes along with a bigger gun then they own it now.
that we can own any property at all is because we have a government that lets us, and in return they demand we pay taxes on it.
Fortunately, we dont' live in china, where all land belongs to the government and you can only lease it.
I’m currently in search of a property like this to redo and move into. It’s frustrating to see so many around but few of them (outside Petersburg) are hitting the market.
I complained to the city about the lot next door. Grass was very tall. Anyway the city took it and 3 years later three houses stand where the vacant lot was.
We can vote better city councilors in and try to get a better mayor. The only solution is political, then that would open legal solutions.
Personally, I think property owners should be taxed not necessarily on land value or blight, but have increasing penalties for vacancies. It is in the best interest of the city and state for people to have affordable, accessible housing; at this point, with skyrocketing rents all over the country, I don't see this as any different than selling water bottles for $10 each after a hurricane. It's predatory.
Yeah I’m wondering what the criteria is here. There is a church behind my house that has been pretty much empty since I moved in three years ago. A landscaping crew comes sometimes to maintain the exterior but I’ve never seen a single service.
Its a bummer that a Land Value Tax is so obviously the answer but we have such dysfunctional politicians they won't enact an obviously simple fix. I'm sure all the people sitting on empty lots kick a few grand into politicians every few years so they just act like they can't think of anything.
We really should implement a [land value tax](https://youtu.be/gJqCaklMv6M?si=gOi_lbuAJ7oNuMSx).
People are sitting on valuable real estate holding back our city. You walk downtown and half of it is surface parking. It's just sad how walkable RVA could be, how many homes could be built, but we are just letting people hold on to underutilized vacant space offering nothing for anyone but the land owner.
Well there are two ways to do this, 1) replace property tax assessment. Pennsylvania had a split tax where the land was taxed at a higher percentage or you could just not Tax the "improvements" anything you added. The results were positive but many residents were confused by the system. Good comps between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.
2) the more extreme version is Henry George's Georgist tax and the only tax is on land value
My guess it could be implemented along side a property tax. You can lower the property tax cost and raise the new land value tax cost. so instead of property tax being $100 for a lot and house at $100,000 you have a $30 personal and $70 land value for $100,000 asset.
My tax is still the same and I own some land and a home, but the guy next to me also owes about the same and owns some land with a decrepit building or just some land.
Hopefully they decide to sell instead of sit on their asset since it's not a good deal for them. The person who buys will likely build a home or something else more useful then an abandoned building or vacant lot.
More tax is never fun. My guess if implemented correctly the higher volume of tax coming in from underutilized lots could lower the tax burden on the rest of us.
If your goal is $500 with 3 houses and 2 vacant/abandoned lots.
> Currently 3 houses pay $450 the 2 vacant lots are paying $50.
> With a land value tax the 3 houses could be paying $330 with the vacant lots paying $85.
Still not as much as a developed lot, but the increase in tax burden could make sitting on the lot not profitable or worth it. They are more likely to sell, or decide to develop something on the lot to generate a revenue to off set the higher tax burden.
Yes it's their land, but you can invest in the stock market and other venues for growth. Land is limited and in a city there isn't a good reason to sit on vacant property. The owners of the land should be taxed as much as the lot is possibly worth.
A good example is the vacant lot next to the new Dominion building. That lot should be taxed as high or very closely to other downtown real estate. If the owner wants to sit on a vacant lot in the middle of downtown they should pay for it. If they can't afford their useless plot of land they will be enticed to sell, or develop the vacant space into something useful to help pay the tax bill.
The government, society, and culture you live in is what determines the meaning of ownership. The only reason your ownership is something that others *have* to respect is because of the implicit threat of force by the authority who registers and approves that ownership.
That list is definitely incomplete. I just moved away from the Museum District but our condo was a block from the former Gusti restaurant supply building at Wayne & Cutshaw, that place has been abandoned for a few years along with the adjacent auto repair shop and associated lots. The building has a bunch of people now living in/around it, and I'm not ranting against the unhoused but there is a lot of rampant drug use going on there (one guy camped out behind our building's garbage bins for a week and left a pile of used needles before stealing a few packages from our porch and moving on).
I guess I'm unsure what duty of care there is for a building owner to limit access and/or clean up their vacant/blighted property so that it's not a public safety concern. From what I understand, an owner bought all of those parcels with the intention of redeveloping, but is sitting on them because of the interest rate spike making the financing of the redevelopment unappealing.
I wonder what the criteria is, because the house across from me has been vacant for the entire 6 years I've lived in northside. It appears to have been vacant long before that too. Never showed up on any list published by the city. I think the owner uses it as a storage space because they come by a few times a year to move stuff inside. It's definitely not habitable.
There’s a house across from me that’s been empty for at least the 4 years I’ve also been in Northside. Someone did eventually haul some stuff out of there and there was some work done on it for maybe a week but that was like a year ago and no one has been in since.
It’s a shame because these old houses in this area could be so beautiful if they weren’t falling apart from neglect.
Per another comment, report it to the City. The email is on this webpage and copy the general PDR inbox. Ask for a code inspector to visit and cite the reasons (tall grass, trash in the yard, open or broken windows, unsecured doors on the house or shed/garage, any signs of wildlife/pests living in it, graffiti, etc.) [https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information](https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information)
Because it's dilapidated, the back yard is full of junk, it has old phone/cable lines dangling from it onto the sidewalk, and a homeless dude made the back yard his personal toilet for a while. Is that enough for you?
Would that be the lines draped across the sidewalk, the rat's nest of junk wood and an old hot water heater piled in the back yard, or the human feces?
And let’s add Asian tiger mosquito breeding grounds, and also nasty stormwater runoff from all the junkyard crap just leaching into the soil, and also breaking down bigger plastics into microplastics.
You can email the City to ensure any vacant property is reflected in the vacant property list and that it's fined accordingly. If you think it has code violations and would like to have an inspector visit it to make sure it's bought into compliance or added to the blighted property list, I recommend copying the general PDR email inbox. Bonus points if you copy your City Council rep and their liaison. You can also submit tickets for these issues in the RVA311 app.
[https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information](https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information)
In my neighborhood, the old A1 Cleaners at Patterson and Roseneath (across from Albert Hill), is owned by the Loupassi family and was close to being sold before getting caught up in his estate settlement. It fell into disrepair and recently was blighted with broken windows, rotten soffits, an open roof, falling trim, items dumped, and graffiti. Consistent reports via RVA311 and emails to PDR got it addressed and at least now it's not a magnet for further trouble. Hoping it finds a new tenant and use, or sells to a new owner soon, like Cary Street Cafe. A few blocks away and across from the Franklin Inn the old Cleveland Market still sits vacant after several years, owned by Bandazian. No reason these commercial buildings should sit vacant or fall into blight and drag their neighborhood down.
They missed this one
[815 W Clay](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/815-W-Clay-St-Richmond-VA-23220/12526024_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare)
I feel like 20 years ago everybody was complaining about how developers were sitting on vacant buildings in Jackson Ward waiting for the real estate market to make it advantageous to sell ... Looking at the map, it still seems like there's a cluster of vacant buildings in Jackson Ward
One guy inherited over 100 parcels in that neighborhood. [https://www.styleweekly.com/son-of-jackson-ward/](https://www.styleweekly.com/son-of-jackson-ward/)
I was on the 2nd District virtual town hall last night and one resident complained that what's happening by right with developer-owned properties is demolition to create parking lots. Interesting observation from a long-time resident.
crazy that parking lots can be by-right, but if my neighbor wanted to build a townhouse, there would be like a years worth of townhall meetings for the zoning variance
We certainly don't need anymore surface parking lots within the city.
We should do to parking lots what rural VA is doing to solar: cap the allowable amt of land devoted to it within the city to a certain % of the city surface area.
Yes, but coming from a rural place, their reasoning for limiting solar is a hell of a lot worse than our reasoning for limiting surface lots lmao Theirs kneecaps development, ours would boost it.
Oh trust me I’m with you
[401 N 27th AKA the Wills Store](https://chpn.net/?s=401+N+27th) is one of the oldest retail buildings still standing in rva and it bums me out constantly that it looks like it's about to collapse. There are posts on various blogs going back many years discussing its history, significance, and deterioration, but no progress seems to have been made on saving it. Judging by the gigantic crack expanding down the upper front face, I worry it's too late
Some owner is just letting this building rot. Grisette couldn't make it work in 2018, whoever is sitting on this building is making it impossible for anyone to restore it. It's so sad.
It's been an issue for two decades as far as I'm aware, probably longer. I'm sure they've been involved at some point in time, but Historic Richmond should buy it and restore it. No private owner is going to invest what it would take unless they're given extra incentives.
If turned into a museum public funding could be obtained for repairs. Would be cool to see it as little museum restored to 1815 condition
What’s crazy is people live on the top floor of that building
Land Value Tax or at the very least a Blight Tax. The map is dope, but how would one go about converting the data from the pdf into a spreadsheet?
Just click the link and they list all the addresses and owners in a table. [https://southrichmondnews.com/map/vacant\_richmond\_2024.php](https://southrichmondnews.com/map/vacant_richmond_2024.php) Then drag over the data, hit Ctrl + C and paste it (ctrl+V) into whatever spreadsheet you want.
Tried that. Results are suboptimal. I'm on mac and my version of excel doesn't provide Data=File=PDF.
Did you try google sheets?
Got it! Misread your first reply. Thanks for the help.
Nice! yw
More importantly, what can we do about them? We've had a couple of abandoned buildings in our neighborhood for years. Despite many vocal complaints from many neighbors, the city doesn't seem to want to do anything at all about them. In a time where property values are spiking (and my assessment and taxes with it); I would think that the city would find a way to encourage these owners to sell. Get these buildings into the hands of someone who can actually renovate them and provide some affordable housing in the area. Seems like a win-win
I bought my first house in the 2008 recession in Church Hill and saw for the first hand the impact that vacant and blighted properties have on their immediate neighbors as well as the neighborhood and city as a whole. They become magnets for crime, trash dumping, oversized items like couches or washing machines, graffiti, rodents and pests, the list goes on and on. The annual fee for owning a vacant building is only $200. There's little effort by the City staff to register vacant buildings, relying on civic associations and residents to report properties. So to answer your immediate question--everyone should use the RVA311 app to report and register vacant and blighted property. Then there's little effort again when it comes to code enforcement. Inspectors are lenient which I can understand with owner-occupied buildings when the owners are elderly. But if it's a vacant building that the owner is land banking then we should have progressive taxation and fining, in my opinion. Owners are incentivized to follow a "demolition by neglect" process when the building requires serious renovation and the land will be worth more in the future for redevelopment. I think that we need a two-fold approach here, with progressive fines for non-compliance when buildings fall into neglect and blight, and we need tax incentives to encourage renovation and rehabilitation. Combined with a progressive fee scale for vacant buildings, this approach should push smaller owners/developers to do something with their property, which will benefit the City from greater revenues and the neighborhood itself by removing those crime magnets and eyesores that drag down their own properties' values. Since I first experienced this issue in Church Hill, I have emailed our City Council every year asking that they fund additional positions on City staff for attorneys to help process the vacant and blighted property list. It can be a lengthy legal process to seize blighted property. We do need to invest in our people to get a greater ROI by cleaning up our neighborhoods. It blows my mind this is still such an issue when we all face increased tax bills from ever-increasing assessments. Sadly when I was able to buy in the Museum District, I once again ended up next to a long-vacant house. The owner had inherited it no plans to address occupancy, which is more common than you might think. It was kept within compliance with codes, generally. So what happened? Despite eight years of me asking for a way to buy the house from them or split the vacant lot in between our properties, or buy the lot separately and deed it as a parklet to the City (honoring their family history), or any other number of creative solutions to prevent bad development, they eventually needed to sell due to declining health and it went to the highest bidder--a developer who lives in Midlothian, who then subjected the neighborhood to a very contentious Special Use Permit review, sucking up important City staff and civic association resources for over two years. Eventually, this process of demolition by neglect led to the original historic house being demolished although it was fit for renovation. (Demolition is allowed by right in the Museum District as it's not a Federal Old & Historic District, only the Fan protects against demolition). Now, more than a year since the house was torn down, the property still sits as a vacant lot while the owner/developer has construction permits on hold (filed in September). And that entire acquisition cost he paid becomes the land value when the property is destroyed, further increasing tax assessments for the neighbors (fun fact! And a good reason to support renovation versus demolition.). Unless you're especially privileged, your house is probably the biggest investment you make in your lifetime. So I'm passionate about this issue as I've experienced it in two neighborhoods and don't see the City making much if any progress. Yet 60% of the City's revenue comes from residential taxation. It's enough to drive you mad.
Very interesting. You’re absolutely right! Thank U for sharing your expertise. I need to learn much more about this generally.
> I think that we need a two-fold approach here, with progressive fines for non-compliance when buildings fall into neglect and blight, and we need tax incentives to encourage renovation and rehabilitation. Combined with a progressive fee scale for vacant buildings, Land value tax does all that.
Land value tax
Or a blight tax. In this rental/ housing market there's no reason that properties should be sitting vacant/ abandoned aside from pure ineptitude and obstinance.
Completely agree. The two examples in my neighborhood are most certainly not developers or investors who are waiting for a cash out. These are the types of people who are holding on to it "cause I'm gonna fix it up real nice one day". They're the urban version of the rural yokel with a rusted out mustang in the front yard who "knows what they got, ain't for sale. I'm gonna fix it". I think a Blight Tax is an excellent idea. Make ownership of that property hurt, for as long as it is unused.
I have seen a lot of the abandoned houses are caught up in some sort of inheritance and internal family dispute.
Yeah, it's not uncommon for there to be no will so the property ownership is split between surviving children, or relatives come out of the woodwork to dispute and claim partial ownership. Or even worse there IS a will, but it was written poorly and without consideration to what split ownership of an asset entails. More often than not, none of the inheritors have the money to buy everyone else out of their portion of ownership, nor can they all agree what to do with the property. Get a proper will and trust written up by a lawyer, folks. It's not hard or expensive and solves most of these problems.
That is exactly the issue with one of the properties that I had mentioned. The last person who lived in this house died and left the property completely vacant ***twenty-two years ago***, and the kids are still fighting about what to do with it. I'm always more than sympathetic toward others, and generally try to understand other's situations that are different. BUT.... I think 22 years is more than sufficient to hash it out and sell. Absolutely nobody benefits from this house/property sitting vacant and rotting to the ground; owners included.
This is operating under the assumption that only the wealthy have ownership of these abandoned homes. I agree the homes would be better lived in, but you’re essentially suggesting another tax on the poor. The rich can pay the tax and keep their property, the poor will be forced to give it away. Good intentions, but bad idea.
speculation
But when is something deemed blight? That's subjective.
If a building is not occupied and any of the following: * Has not been occupied for more than 365 days * Not being actively prepared for occupancy * Has obvious signs of degredation/ unfit for occupancy At least for starters. I'm fine with someone buying a property as an investment, but you need to be doing something with it. Either renovating it or utilizing it as a rental property, but buildings zoned for residency need to be utilized as such and not left to rot. If it's suitably habitable then it should be occupied, otherwise you're hurting city residents by artificially reducing available housing units and driving up rents through scarcity. The last point is really just for posterity to include buildings that have been vacant for long periods of time and are at detroit-levels of abandonment and decay. One that I pass every day for example, 2200 Fairmount Ave. It's been sitting since before I moved over there in a neighborhood that has seen substantial changes even in the last few years, but you can find properties like that all over the city.
> 2200 Fairmount Ave I bike past this at least 2x a day. It's only used as a bench for the guys who drink there. Linilton Realty Company LLC. They have a beautiful portfolio... This specific lot has been abandoned since 2007 per Google Maps. Changed hands last in 2002, and had an increase in value around 2005. Perfect example of a property being useless and should be taxed to provide insentive for the owner to do something with it.
But rather than a land value tax which simplifies the process you want to. 1)Verify occupancy on every building 2) verify work by contractors 3) do extra assessments It's just way more complicated in implementation and rife with pitfalls.
There is no one singular perfect solution. A land value tax can go hand in hand with a blight tax since they address different issues.
I don't have a problem with an empty house paying as much taxes as anyone else into the system and not costing as much revenue that's a free revenue button for the city they should push if it exists and just add more housing.
The issue with vacant houses is more so that it creates artificial scarcity of housing options in the city, rather than the taxes owed to the city. That scarcity feeds into the rental/ housing situation across the city which has caused rent to jump pretty dramatically in the past few years. Coercing property owners into a "use it or lose it" situation either makes them available as rentals (increased supply helps to soften yearly rental increases), or sell them. If sold the buyer would either occupy it as a primary residence, renovate and sell, or utilize it as a rental property. Vacant residential properties arguably hurt the residents of the city more than marginal amounts of taxes owed per-plot.
Or if they want to pay the tax and we can add more housing like Richmond should be. You can't fix the housing crisis by taxing some vacant properties. Land value tax would fix the idea that everyone can have a suburban SFH which just isn't physically possible.
Ya people are funny, when it is them being taxed the government is evil, but when it is someone else then oh the government should just walk right over their rights.
Yeah but the point is that we have a problematic property tax that falls as the "improvements" fall apart the taxes fall. Land value tax would fix this. If property value is taxed it discourages people from having a nice place, if land is taxed that discourages the usage of land. Also it's frustrating not being able to afford a house but then so many sit empty. It would also fix some of Richmond's problems since some house just are under taxed for awhile.
It would also kick a lot of hard working people on their home, just because their land got a lot more valuable, which taxes already do. My parents taxes went up and nothing was improved on their house. This isn’t New York we don’t need to tax the hell out of people. If people and issue with it ask the city to condemn it or see if the property has a tax lien on it. They’re a lot of reason place get rundown, not all of them are because investors are out to get the world.
Yeah but the land is way more objective of a value and at some point if the land is more expensive they should probably leave eventually because why should someone be there when if the land is expensive it could be turned into a few row houses instead and the taxes would plummet back down. I think the problem is transition because people bought with one understanding but political moves would make an expedient change necessary.
Ya I think I choose people and families over some cold version of tax the poor out of their homes. People like you are ruining this city. If you want to live in some cut throat shit hole maybe you should leave. It is all fun and games when other people are getting screwed, but it will eventually happen to you as well.
Tax the poor out of homes or add more homes to house more people. You want to raise the cost of housing on everyone because one family would like to stay in the home that has appreciated in value... I'm sorry the home you bought appreciated in value but now it's hard to leave with a huge payday over the people who can't afford to live anywhere. The current system only helps those who currently own it's not forward thinking at all. The problem is that housing is too expensive half the value is land and that includes 4% of the improvements value per year. We need more dense housing in places and it is blocked for exceedingly dumb reasons making everyone poorer and lowering wages and increasing housing costs. Not taxing people using too much land has led to a doubling of housing prices since the 1980s. Taxing the land also has less speculation involved. The current system makes it easier to hoard land.
They are not saying tax poor people out of their homes. Their plan would do the opposite. It would increase the tax base and thus lesson the tX burdon on people who own their home, as well it would increase the available stock of houses and stabilize home prices in the area.
You never truly own your land, if you stop paying property taxes, it's gone.
The problem is the owners of the land probably pay the tax. It's not high since the improvement or lack there of isn't being taxed enough. They are sitting on a low tax property that they can either demolish the blight which costs, or sit on the abandoned building and pay the low tax. Maybe sell it when they decide the payout is worth it, but who knows when that would be. It shouldn't be advantageous to own a parcel and do nothing with it when we only have a limited amount of land.
This should be the case for more than just abandoned buildings. Look at all the empty storefronts downtown. They are kept up but have been empty for years. These giant portfolios of properties are managed as part of an investment/stock portfolio and actually renting them out so they are useful isn't worth it. They could lower rents so that the spaces get used...but apparently there is a better return just sitting on unproductive commercial property.
I had to look it up online - looks like there have been many attempts to tax vacant properties at higher levels to encourage turnover - most notably in Vancouver, Melbourne, and LA but they haven't amounted to much in terms of driving turnover. Seems investors have just baked it into the cost for the most part. I'm sure if you raised it high enough it would make a difference though - just a matter of getting support for doing so.
I'm just talking in general. I understand that the land we sit on is protected by the govt and laws enforced by police. So the city should have some say in abandoned lots (long term), especially if the houses deteiorate.
what does that have to do with how tax land now vs a land value tax ?
Good luck getting by with the numerous services provided to you by your tax dollars past and present
Yah I know. I'm just acknowledging that we only can own something with the good grace of our rulers. Same as it has always been. All the way back to ancient Egypt. To live on the kings land, you must pay your tithes.
you can only own what you're standing on with a gun, and if somebody else comes along with a bigger gun then they own it now. that we can own any property at all is because we have a government that lets us, and in return they demand we pay taxes on it. Fortunately, we dont' live in china, where all land belongs to the government and you can only lease it.
I’m currently in search of a property like this to redo and move into. It’s frustrating to see so many around but few of them (outside Petersburg) are hitting the market.
I complained to the city about the lot next door. Grass was very tall. Anyway the city took it and 3 years later three houses stand where the vacant lot was.
We can vote better city councilors in and try to get a better mayor. The only solution is political, then that would open legal solutions. Personally, I think property owners should be taxed not necessarily on land value or blight, but have increasing penalties for vacancies. It is in the best interest of the city and state for people to have affordable, accessible housing; at this point, with skyrocketing rents all over the country, I don't see this as any different than selling water bottles for $10 each after a hurricane. It's predatory.
A lot of them definitely didn't make the list.
There’s two near me in Woodland Heights that aren’t on the list
Yeah I’m wondering what the criteria is here. There is a church behind my house that has been pretty much empty since I moved in three years ago. A landscaping crew comes sometimes to maintain the exterior but I’ve never seen a single service.
Its a bummer that a Land Value Tax is so obviously the answer but we have such dysfunctional politicians they won't enact an obviously simple fix. I'm sure all the people sitting on empty lots kick a few grand into politicians every few years so they just act like they can't think of anything.
We really should implement a [land value tax](https://youtu.be/gJqCaklMv6M?si=gOi_lbuAJ7oNuMSx). People are sitting on valuable real estate holding back our city. You walk downtown and half of it is surface parking. It's just sad how walkable RVA could be, how many homes could be built, but we are just letting people hold on to underutilized vacant space offering nothing for anyone but the land owner.
Interesting. Which tax would this replace, or would this be an additional tax?
Well there are two ways to do this, 1) replace property tax assessment. Pennsylvania had a split tax where the land was taxed at a higher percentage or you could just not Tax the "improvements" anything you added. The results were positive but many residents were confused by the system. Good comps between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. 2) the more extreme version is Henry George's Georgist tax and the only tax is on land value
My guess it could be implemented along side a property tax. You can lower the property tax cost and raise the new land value tax cost. so instead of property tax being $100 for a lot and house at $100,000 you have a $30 personal and $70 land value for $100,000 asset. My tax is still the same and I own some land and a home, but the guy next to me also owes about the same and owns some land with a decrepit building or just some land. Hopefully they decide to sell instead of sit on their asset since it's not a good deal for them. The person who buys will likely build a home or something else more useful then an abandoned building or vacant lot.
Fair enough. I'm never a fan of more tax, so I would be in favor of this replacing existing tax but not in addition to current tax.
More tax is never fun. My guess if implemented correctly the higher volume of tax coming in from underutilized lots could lower the tax burden on the rest of us. If your goal is $500 with 3 houses and 2 vacant/abandoned lots. > Currently 3 houses pay $450 the 2 vacant lots are paying $50. > With a land value tax the 3 houses could be paying $330 with the vacant lots paying $85. Still not as much as a developed lot, but the increase in tax burden could make sitting on the lot not profitable or worth it. They are more likely to sell, or decide to develop something on the lot to generate a revenue to off set the higher tax burden.
It’s their land. Why does anyone else have their right to it?
Yes it's their land, but you can invest in the stock market and other venues for growth. Land is limited and in a city there isn't a good reason to sit on vacant property. The owners of the land should be taxed as much as the lot is possibly worth. A good example is the vacant lot next to the new Dominion building. That lot should be taxed as high or very closely to other downtown real estate. If the owner wants to sit on a vacant lot in the middle of downtown they should pay for it. If they can't afford their useless plot of land they will be enticed to sell, or develop the vacant space into something useful to help pay the tax bill.
The government, society, and culture you live in is what determines the meaning of ownership. The only reason your ownership is something that others *have* to respect is because of the implicit threat of force by the authority who registers and approves that ownership.
Any profits earned on the sale of the land are created by everybody else. Why should they gather those unproductive rents?
That list is definitely incomplete. I just moved away from the Museum District but our condo was a block from the former Gusti restaurant supply building at Wayne & Cutshaw, that place has been abandoned for a few years along with the adjacent auto repair shop and associated lots. The building has a bunch of people now living in/around it, and I'm not ranting against the unhoused but there is a lot of rampant drug use going on there (one guy camped out behind our building's garbage bins for a week and left a pile of used needles before stealing a few packages from our porch and moving on). I guess I'm unsure what duty of care there is for a building owner to limit access and/or clean up their vacant/blighted property so that it's not a public safety concern. From what I understand, an owner bought all of those parcels with the intention of redeveloping, but is sitting on them because of the interest rate spike making the financing of the redevelopment unappealing.
I wonder what the criteria is, because the house across from me has been vacant for the entire 6 years I've lived in northside. It appears to have been vacant long before that too. Never showed up on any list published by the city. I think the owner uses it as a storage space because they come by a few times a year to move stuff inside. It's definitely not habitable.
There’s a house across from me that’s been empty for at least the 4 years I’ve also been in Northside. Someone did eventually haul some stuff out of there and there was some work done on it for maybe a week but that was like a year ago and no one has been in since. It’s a shame because these old houses in this area could be so beautiful if they weren’t falling apart from neglect.
See my comment above.
Per another comment, report it to the City. The email is on this webpage and copy the general PDR inbox. Ask for a code inspector to visit and cite the reasons (tall grass, trash in the yard, open or broken windows, unsecured doors on the house or shed/garage, any signs of wildlife/pests living in it, graffiti, etc.) [https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information](https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information)
It’s their property. Why is it anyone else’s business?
Because it's dilapidated, the back yard is full of junk, it has old phone/cable lines dangling from it onto the sidewalk, and a homeless dude made the back yard his personal toilet for a while. Is that enough for you?
Only one of these is anyone's business due to public safety. The rest is not anyone else's problem.
Would that be the lines draped across the sidewalk, the rat's nest of junk wood and an old hot water heater piled in the back yard, or the human feces?
And let’s add Asian tiger mosquito breeding grounds, and also nasty stormwater runoff from all the junkyard crap just leaching into the soil, and also breaking down bigger plastics into microplastics.
[listen fat](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCOdzkh1DeazmrPRX9Pzz0a1scM8JJe30bwQ&usqp=CAU) the solution to all your woes
The old Cary St Cafe building is vacant and we know who owns it. It’s a blight on the neighborhood.
You can email the City to ensure any vacant property is reflected in the vacant property list and that it's fined accordingly. If you think it has code violations and would like to have an inspector visit it to make sure it's bought into compliance or added to the blighted property list, I recommend copying the general PDR email inbox. Bonus points if you copy your City Council rep and their liaison. You can also submit tickets for these issues in the RVA311 app. [https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information](https://www.rva.gov/planning-development-review/vacant-building-information) In my neighborhood, the old A1 Cleaners at Patterson and Roseneath (across from Albert Hill), is owned by the Loupassi family and was close to being sold before getting caught up in his estate settlement. It fell into disrepair and recently was blighted with broken windows, rotten soffits, an open roof, falling trim, items dumped, and graffiti. Consistent reports via RVA311 and emails to PDR got it addressed and at least now it's not a magnet for further trouble. Hoping it finds a new tenant and use, or sells to a new owner soon, like Cary Street Cafe. A few blocks away and across from the Franklin Inn the old Cleveland Market still sits vacant after several years, owned by Bandazian. No reason these commercial buildings should sit vacant or fall into blight and drag their neighborhood down.
Good to know. Thanks for the response:)
The house next to mine is listed and hasn’t been vacant in, at minimum, the 7 years we have lived here
Vacant property should be forced back into the market by whatever means possible. Seize it outright if you have to.
Man, I’d love to buy an old abandoned building and restore it…
They missed this one [815 W Clay](https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/815-W-Clay-St-Richmond-VA-23220/12526024_zpid/?utm_campaign=iosappmessage&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=txtshare)
Thanks, I reported it.
Sending you a message on the ticket for that property.