Quote Originally Posted by ndavies View Post
The real problem is the overwhelming size of the issue.

No other city is doing this. However, no other city has 90,000 tax foreclosed residential properties in their landbank. No other city has almost 20,000 empty residential buildings in the landbank. [[that doesn't include the vacant delipidated houses still in private hands.) The second closest is Cleveland with under 8,000 properties in their landbank. No other city in the world has an issue like this.

The landbank doesn't have the funds to mothball all the vacant property in it's possession. They don't even have the funds to keep the lots mowed after the last set of budget cuts they were hit with. So the bond money is needed to stabilize half of these derelict houses and tear the worst ones down.

If you can figure out a way to get all those houses back into tax paying use, they wouldn't need to tear them down. If you bought one it would help the city.
Sounds like landbanks aren't the solution to revitalizing the city then?

I would suggest that the city [[and region) address the actual problem, which has been obvious for decades: sprawl.