Speculators, investors or vultures? Detroit land owners.

**GOAT** · February-03-11, 09:37 AM

Do you believe these people are a hindrance to Detroit or are they pushing Detroit in a new direction?

http://detnews.com/article/20110203/...L01/110202002/

What do you think Detroit can do to help or stop this type of action?

**esp1986** · February-03-11, 09:51 AM

I'm not sure of the scope of the Detroit blight laws, but in many places, enforcement would allow a lien to be attached to the property, eventually leading to forfeiture... given this guy supposedly has no money, if the city were actually to enforce the blight penalties against him, he may be forced to give a few of them up.

**tkelly1986** · February-03-11, 10:04 AM

What bothers me is that this shows another case of the complete incompetence by city government/workers....If these properties are valuable for planned redevelopment projects, how can the city let these slip through the cracks [[when they have first right). Why are they not tracking this, whom is not doing their job??? Its not like they had no idea the property was to be needed, especially when the city buys the property from the speculators quickly thereafter.

**Packman41** · February-03-11, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

What bothers me is that this shows another case of the complete incompetence by city government/workers....If these properties are valuable for planned redevelopment projects, how can the city let these slip through the cracks [[when they have first right). Why are they not tracking this, whom is not doing their job??? Its not like they had no idea the property was to be needed, especially when the city buys the property from the speculators quickly thereafter.

Exactly my thought too.

If the CofD has right of first refusal on all these properties, then they should do a little research first and retain the properties they want.

The first rule as a seller is to know what you are selling. If you do not know what the asset is worth, then you are likely going to accept a low offer. This is pure laziness on the part of the CofD. If they had retained these properties, then the CofD would be making the profit and not this guy.

It is nearly always easier and cheaper to prevent a problem than deal with the aftermath.

**JBMcB** · February-03-11, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by tkelly1986

If these properties are valuable for planned redevelopment projects, how can the city let these slip through the cracks [[when they have first right).

Remember that guy who bought half of a city parking garage because the city never combined the properties on the paperwork and the state of Michigan foreclosed on it? Did anyone loose their job over that rather huge oversight?

If you can do a lousy job with no consequences why should you improve?

**Richard** · February-03-11, 10:58 AM

IMHO yes and no ,if the city does not have a master plan then they cannot for-see future funding,if they hold all of the properties then they also carry the costs of maintenance, liability if somebody gets hurt on them etc,it is better to sell them and let someone else pay the taxes etc,and have those funds available now.

Does it it hurt ? not at this point but if a study is not performed on what the actual city owned holding costs are it is really hard to say or compare.

But as mentioned in the video it will hurt once the momentum starts going as it will be accessible cheap properties that will help the average home buyer wanting to move into a neighborhood,which is needed to create stability.

In other cities speculators definitely have a major deciding factor in whether a neighborhood gets rebuilt,its a five year plan ,buy a cheap property fix it by covering it up to look nice, rent it out for 5 years fixing nothing and dropping the rent prices as it deteriates more, end of the 5 years sell it to the next investor etc.,after 4 cycles of this a wood frame house is ready for demolition.

Empty lots are a huge gamble when house prices are low,buy a empty lot and spend $70,000 to build a house on it makes no sense.big gambles require big returns.

The guy that owns the most in the 10 listed is smart , he does not care about neighborhoods it is business,nothing personal , who would not want to buy something for $500 and sell it for $25,000 buy low sell high ,but if he really does owe $100k in back taxes the city can play that game also and do swap outs.

kinda like a love hate thing.

**sirrealone** · February-03-11, 11:37 AM

From a pure business perspective, he has every right to do what he does. He's allowed to purchase property at market value.

But, it's obvious, at least from the article, that this guy does not have any love for the city nor any compassion for fellow human beings.

Technically, yes, he had rights to the property that they talked about where the guy that thought he owned the place had put tens of thousands of dollars into it yet ended up losing it and watching it later get burned down. Kelly could have admired the fact that there was someone putting such a nice investment in, sold it at what would have still been a profit to him, but instead he chose to be a di*k about it.

Also, the part about him tearing up 'his' part of the parking lot and filling the guardhouse up with manure because the owner of the business wouldn't give in to his demands of clearing a 600,000% profit or whatever it was, that's crazy.

When his own brother basically says he'll step on anybody for an extra buck, you know this guy is trouble.

Personally, I hope that the city doesn't cave into this guy. Even if Bing is able to clear out neighborhoods, I don't really know that they expect to be able to sell big chunks of the land, so if this guy owns a bunch of empty land that he refuses to cell, so be it. Just deal with those that are reasonable, shut down services to those areas, then wait for Mr. Kelly to stop paying his taxes, foreclose on it, and there you go. It might take a few extra years to get the land, but it will show that this guy has a choice, take what will certainly be a nice profit or be a complete a-hole about it looking to strike gold.

I think speculators can and are good in many cases. This particular one, though, seems nothing but bad news for the city.

**milt721** · February-03-11, 01:16 PM

Did anyone notice that the property at 3165 Medbury [[part of a recent discussion on DetroitYes) was one of the properties featured in the interactive portion of the article.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20110...L01/110202002/. Click on the link and select properties owned by Matt Tartarian. It is featured property #3 on that page.

**izzyindetroit** · February-03-11, 01:49 PM

Check out this gem from 2009: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...alk_Away_Stimu

Mike G. Kelly needs to make money off those properties some how.

**drjeff** · February-03-11, 02:01 PM

If a buyer is willing to invest in the city, pay the property taxes, and conform to building code rules, I have no problem with it.

I highly doubt this guy is really paying property taxes on 1100+ properties in Detroit, or that none of these have derelict or dangerous buildings on them, in which case he is a leech.

Mr. Houdini · February-03-11, 02:05 PM

That was an excellent interactive map. Well done.

**rhythmc** · February-03-11, 02:59 PM

I'm not sure I see how anyone who buys a property and proceeds to do nothing but sit on it can be considered an investor. From my perspective, they are speculators or worse, slum lords. A true investor will look to find a viable means to improve they're holdings.

At any rate, I'm sure the city will find the ability to pursue any of these guys for whatever areas in which they may be negligent [[taxes, upkeep, etc) to gain title to some of these properties. As it stands, they all stand in the way of the city making any meaningful progress.

**hamtown mike** · February-03-11, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Packman41

The first rule as a seller is to know what you are selling. If you do not know what the asset is worth, then you are likely going to accept a low offer. This is pure laziness on the part of the CofD. If they had retained these properties, then the CofD would be making the profit and not this guy.

Because nobody in the city of Detroit is corrupt, and would never consider leaking the city's plans to a "friend."

I say if Bing plans on clearing sections of the city via buyout, only do so with livable houses. Condem the uninhabitable. I noticed many of the properties owned by the top 10 were vacant properties. Don't waste time or the money buying vacant land from these speculating-jackals [[jack-holes)

**Detroitej72** · February-03-11, 05:27 PM

The city needs to use some common sense and see where the property is located and what is in the works for the area before selling any parcel off.

That said, Detroit needs to enforce all blight ordnances and fine the hell out of anyone whose land becomes a dumping ground. At the same time, if the owners are delinquent on taxes, start foreclosure proceedings immediately.

This will, at the very least, make these clowns think twice before they buy land in bulk with no plans for reuse. Do you think the suburbs would allow this to happen?

**CLAUDE G** · February-03-11, 06:11 PM

If you watched the video, there was a guy who invested his life savings of $40,000 to fix up a house that Kelly stole from him in a tax sale for $100.

The guy is sitting there in his burned out house telling his story on how Kelly screwed him over.

You just know the guy burned down his own house when he lost in court and Kelly stole it from him.

Its pretty sad

**fryar** · February-03-11, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by rhythmc

I'm not sure I see how anyone who buys a property and proceeds to do nothing but sit on it can be considered an investor. From my perspective, they are speculators or worse, slum lords. A true investor will look to find a viable means to improve they're holdings.

At any rate, I'm sure the city will find the ability to pursue any of these guys for whatever areas in which they may be negligent [[taxes, upkeep, etc) to gain title to some of these properties. As it stands, they all stand in the way of the city making any meaningful progress.

Actually, Mike Kelly is betting on the idea that the city's paperwork and record-keeping "can't be trusted", i.e. that these are not sufficiently up to par to successfully prosecute him for anything.

**fryar** · February-03-11, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by izzyindetroit

Check out this gem from 2009: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news...alk_Away_Stimu

Well, I'll be...

Why isn't this guy in jail?

**mjs** · February-03-11, 10:47 PM

Sounds like a mixed bag of good and bad. The Brightmoor nonprofit sounds like they are trying to do good and their situation sounds unfortunate.

Originally Posted by fryar

Actually, Mike Kelly is betting on the idea that the city's paperwork and record-keeping "can't be trusted", i.e. that these are not sufficiently up to par to successfully prosecute him for anything.

How could he get that to work? By Michigan Court Rules, in property cases, the Plaintiff must serve anyone with a suspected property interest either in person or by certified mail and must post notice on the property and by public notice. If you don't show, you lose by default. If you deny you have an interest, you can't stop the Plaintiff. If you don't have receipts or cashed checks to prove you paid the taxes, the Judge has to trust the city records. Its all done in civil court so they only need to prove its more likely than not that the taxes are delinquent or that the property is open to trespass.

The stronger case is under contract law. All properties sold under the nuisance abatement, drug forfeiture, and city sales used to include a clause that the property can be taken back if not rehabilitated within either a year or six months. The whole purpose of the nuisance and drug house filings being to get property rehab, all their settlements included this clause and were very strictly enforced. The city never used to enforce the clause, but the county always did and often acted on behalf of the city in enforcing theirs. I assume it still works the same way.

The paper did a great job with the research and maps, but I can believe that between the extremely slow county recorder, the sloppy record handling of the city, and the high rates of unrecorded property transactions, many of the records they used could be wrong. However, it all gets sorted out in court and I've never heard of the city or county going further than taking the property.

**R8RBOB** · February-04-11, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Houdini

That was an excellent interactive map. Well done.

One of the best maps, I ever used interactively.

After viewing the map, I can see why Detroit is viewed the way it is viewed. You have these guys owning property in Detroit and they just let it sit and sit and sit until they end up losing it because of taxes. Some of these guys like Bert Dearing are waiting for pie in the sky. They are waiting for a developer with fat pockets to come marching into Detroit with plans to redevelop the areas empty of homes and people and they will have the property needed to make it happen.

DetroitDad · February-04-11, 01:06 AM

Detroit could use more trees and hard to clear brush, especially in the areas planned to remain vacant.

NorthEndere · February-04-11, 06:51 AM

Does anyone know how many people the city has dedicated to vacant land and properties? I see a lot of people complain about their record keeping, but I can't imagine a city government out there that could keep up with the sheer level and pace of abandonment Detroit has had to. We're talking nearly a third of the residential properties in the city, now, either cleared or abandoned/vacant. You could that with the lack of any real long-term planning going back decades [[yes, even before the riot), and there was no way city government could keep up [[or should have been obligated all by itself) with this while having to try and maintain all other primary city services.

**milt721** · February-04-11, 11:43 AM

Here's another problem with these land speculators - they hinder progress. Example here: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&sourc...283.91,,0,8.04

Guess who owns this land among mostly new houses? Our buddy, Mr. Kelly.

**R8RBOB** · February-04-11, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by milt721

Here's another problem with these land speculators - they hinder progress. Example here: http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&sourc...283.91,,0,8.04

Guess who owns this land among mostly new houses? Our buddy, Mr. Kelly.

This empty parcel of land looks like the result of Mr. Kelly attempting to hold out for a huge payday when the developers came in to build new homes. They must have given him the middle finger and proceeded to to build around him leaving him with his parcel of empty land with no takers.

**pffft** · February-04-11, 12:23 PM

Day two of the series, worth reading, especially about what reforms would help discourage speculation:

http://detnews.com/article/20110204/...nd-speculators

**Richard** · February-04-11, 01:10 PM

Land Speculators have been around sense day one,there are checks and balances in the system,bring it down to the average person that owner buys a lot for the future,maybe to sell later for their kids collage fund, comes time to sell the lot what happens when the city owns the other lots and offers theirs way cheaper because they can? Can a city compete against its residents in the real estate market.

During the boom another city wanted to provide affordable housing for school teachers,police officers etc. they were going to use a parcel of land to build a large townhouse project,the thought was nice but it got shot down. why ? because at that point the city would have become a business that would have competed against its own residents.

How much does it cost the city taxpayers if one lawsuit occurs from one "slip and Fall " on a neglected city owned property? It has happened before.