New Haven Independent

Posted by: robn | October 17, 2008 9:20 AM

This is exactly the kind of "think globally, act locally" thinking that we need from the BOA. Thank you Alders Rodriguez and Sturgis-Pascale.

Posted by: Heightz | October 17, 2008 9:31 AM

Whoa - nice work alders !!

Posted by: Gary Doyens | October 17, 2008 10:02 AM

Why should it cost $100 to register your foreclosure with the city? I think it's a good idea they register but why charge a fee? It takes 2 seconds...or is this an attempt to replace the declining sales tax revenue from the sales and flips of so many properties during the spike in real estate values that lead to this mess?

Posted by: Outcome | October 17, 2008 11:39 AM

Owners of foreclosed properties are unlikely to comply. Lack of knowledge of the ordinance will be one reason. Also their overworked, overstretched staff will be another. Remember, the banks are in dire straits right now.

The result will be the city taking over many, many properties. The consequences will be

* Higher taxes to support LCI trying to stabilize abandoned houses

* A reduction in the tax base as these properties become uninhabitable

* Future retiscence to lend by bankers in a city where property is siezed by obscure ordinances.

* A property price collapse in the city

* Sky high tax rates in the future

While I applaud the city's attempt to reduce the problem, I fear this will only worsen it.

As usual Johnny Boy's had a another "brilliant" idea. I think there should be a competition to find a new and more accurate nickname for him. I think Mad Dog Johnny would be more accurate.

Let the markets work is the best solution. This will not happen before November 2009.

Posted by: Heightz | October 17, 2008 12:32 PM

Outcome:

Though I agree with some of your thoughts I adisagree with the banks will not comply. I believe by the virtue of this being on the books banks and other out-of-state lenders will comply given this economic state why risk additional fines?, they'll be insane not too. Plus to take a pro-active approach to encourage these banks to hire a management company to mantain these properties isn't a bad idea. I live in the fair haven heights section of the city and can point out a number of properties that are abandant and just sit there. I applaud them trying to take a pro-active approach to have out of state lenders mantain their properties.. at a minimum.

Posted by: robn | October 17, 2008 1:01 PM

OUTCOME,

Theres nothing in this article stating that the city would seize property and take it off of the tax roles. This ordinance simply creates a tracking mechnism to

a) try to prevent foreclosure in the first place, and

b) hold a foreclosing entity accountable for property upkeep.

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | October 17, 2008 1:14 PM

Outcome (hope this isn't coming off too strong as it is intended to foster dialogue):

First, this didn't come from the mayor but from two alders in wards full of newly abandoned houses. As a resident of West River I've seen our list go from 62 vacant homes a few short years ago to 4 last year and now back up to 42 as of the end of August. I don't know about you but I don't want to wait a year for this to resolve itself. We trusted the 'markets' before and look where we are.

Second, what about the expense already incurred by LCI (meaning us taxpayers) to clean up and secure these abandoned houses with no one to subrogate the costs. Have YOU ever tried to figure out who owns these homes? I have. It ain't easy.

Third, this gives the city real reasons to legally take the homes and perhaps turn them over to resident homeowners and get them back on the tax producing rolls quickly.

Fourth, taxes are already high so I see nothing wrong with trying to get back some of the unnecessary expenditures.

Fifth, an equally possible end result could be a reluctance by banks to foreclose on homes so quickly or at least an increase in the likelihood that they will let someone buy them at auction. You are very correct in that the banks are in big trouble... trouble that they themselves created by lending to unqualified buyers. Agencies like NHS, Hill and Dwight Development and HRI are begging for homes to rehab and resell. They have subsidies to put low income first time buyers (in some cases low income means 120% of area median income) in these houses and they have people waiting in the wings to make these purchases.

Lastly, I see criticisms but no suggestions of a better way to do it. What you got?

There are enough real things to be mad at DeStefano about but we can't blame him for everything. We overestimate his power when we do that. He's a human being and will make mistakes. We all have our opinions on how things should go and they might often flow differently from what he thinks. That's called life. We have a recourse... it's called voting. Furthermore, we must admit that he often has good ideas that really work. Give credit where credit is due and do likewise with blame.

No one expects this legislation to be the 'saving grace' for our vacant property problem but it is a valiant step in the right direction.

(I have GOT to stop with the long posts. Sorry folks.)

Posted by: Outcome | October 17, 2008 2:22 PM

To robn

Siezure is implied by the $250 a day fine. If the bank takes 6 months in getting round to deal with New Havens problems that's $45,000. If a year its $90,000. Thats more than these houses are worth. Look at some of the listings on the Board of Realtors web sight. The banks know the Feds will bale them out on this. The banks will concentrate on the forclosed $5,000,000 mansions they may get $500,000 for in Las Vegas or California or Miami. They will get some money back there and make a profit. Remember it takes a lot of administration to do these things. It costs money.

Look at the crane double taxation issue. Look at the sales tax plan to hit IKEA last year.

The city goes after the easy money. It frightens away business people with initiative that can solve problems.

To Kevin Ewing

I do understand your position. On a humanitarian level you are trying to do the right thing. It wont happen as government money is needed. The Feds have about $5 trillion in debt already thru unbalanced budgets since Nixons days. I'll put the zeros on so you can get an idea what that looks like

$5,000,000,000,000.

Another $1 trillion is estimated to be needed to bale out the banks. The stockmarket has gone from 14,000 to 9,000. Thats $2 trillion of peoples money thats evaporated.

It took ten years from the 1929 crash for things to get better. The point I was making with Mad Dog Johnny is that he is campaining on an issue he cant do anything about. Hes giving people false hopes. Thats really very dishonest.

Things will get worse before they get better and we can all expect the city to look like a battleground for several years to come.

What we need is a mayor that concentrates on providing high quality basic services at a reasonable cost. Police, Fire, Education, Health, Streets and the absolutely necessary social services. Where is the fairness in helping someone who has been greedy and bought a house they cant afford. There is a homeless family out there that have lost there jobs. They are the ones most in need. Help them.

No. DeStefano has held power by pretending to help the poor. He only helps the rich. He gives big tax brakes to Shartenburg and then expects to get PILOT money from the state. So we pay for his follies in our state tax and not our property tax. Tax is tax is tax. It doesnt matter who you pay it too.

This is his latest game. Pretending to help people going into forclosure.

Posted by: robn | October 17, 2008 2:32 PM

KE,

I see nothing in the article about the City taking propoerty...only about fining those who don't care for the properties.

Posted by: robn | October 17, 2008 5:36 PM

OUTCOME,

The city should protect the rights of taxpaying homeowners and demand that institutions who foreclose are taking care of properties. This is as reasonable as asking homeowners to take care of their properties, which LCI currently does.

There is little incentive for the city to seize property.

Your theoretical 90K house at 44.21 mill rate pays about $4,000 annually in taxes. Add to that the cost of a caretaker and the cost of maintaining the empty house is far cheaper than getting fined at such punitive rates (your math seems correct and a year of $250/day is about 90K). So through disincentive, this law creates a great incentive for foreclosing institutions to maintain the houses or sell the houses.

Posted by: Alan Felder | October 18, 2008 12:01 AM

Another policy from the anti-Black BOA, I smell a Black Tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: robn | October 19, 2008 8:19 AM

AF,

How is trying to intervene upon a foreclosure process and assist homeowners, many of whom are african american, anti-black?

Posted by: Edward_H | October 19, 2008 9:14 AM

Alan Felder

Another policy from the anti-Black BOA, I smell a Black Tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you mind explaining how this is a "Black Tax"?

Posted by: Kevin Ewing | October 20, 2008 10:08 AM

Mr. Felder, I don't know you though I have seen you at several events. I don't believe I have EVER seen you smile. I have never seen you have anything good to say about ANYTHING!!! What I see is a person so consumed by hate and fear that he is about to explode.

How can you claim to be so PRO black but pal around with a group of haters who have partnered with groups known historically to promote slavery, Jim Crow and outright hatred of anything or anyone that isn't white? You are being used, bruh.

I've tried ignoring your nonsensical rants. I've tried getting angry at you. Now I feel sorry for you. Your hatred is eating you alive. This isn't just about immigrants and it is DEFINITELY not about being black. There is something much deeper going on in you and I pray you get it under control before you loose your mind.