Rep. GiaQuinta’s HB 1324 would give counties options for disposing of vacant lots acquired at tax sale.
Permits a county to sell a vacant parcel acquired by the county in a tax sale to the owner of a contiguous residential parcel for $1 if the contiguous parcel is entitled to the standard property tax deduction. Allows the county to establish criteria to identify vacant parcels eligible for sale. Establishes procedures for conduct of the sale, transfer of the vacant parcel, and consolidation of the vacant parcel with the contiguous parcel. Provides that the consolidated parcel is entitled to an exemption from property taxation in the amount of the assessed value of the vacant parcel at the time of consolidation until the earlier of the following: (1) the next transfer of title after the consolidation; or (2) five years after the transfer of the title to the successful applicant.
This passed the House on a 88-7 vote and is waiting to be heard in the Senate.
If the neighborhood has a problem with nonresident property owners (landlords and slumlords), then doesn’t this just lock the neighborhood into the problem for perpetuity because as long as the neighborhood has a significant number of nonresident property owners, the neighborhood is unlikely to change.
So exactly who is this intended to benefit?
I live on a block with several properties up for tax sale. The lot south of us has been an eyesore for sometime according to folks who have lived there longer than me. I’m making moves toward buying it, and then simply turning it into a greenspace. It may not benefit every neighborhood, but it can be a very useful tool for areas that are trying to transition.
Of course, if anyone wants to become a partner in the landlord business, I think we can get half the block for about 30K.
You would be right if the purchaser of the property used it for rental. What if the purchaser rejuvenated it and sold it to a buyer who intends to live there? I think I have heard of a couple instances in Indianapolis of an association of neighbors banding together to purchase a rundown property and selling to someone who will live there as a homeowner. No sure how they accomplish this group effort, but isn’t it somewhat the same as Habitat — reclaiming property and providing stability. Maybe this bill is intended to encourage this type of effort.
Only if one of the neighbors interested in building new construction on the property happens to live next door to the vacant property. My experience has been that people in the neighborhood devote resources to renovation and not new construction. In troubled neighborhoods. the only persons willing to do new construction on vacant lots are the CDCs, which, under this law, would not have a shot at purchasing the property. Oh well, someone has pushed this law for some reason. I guess we will find out!
Wouldn’t a neighbor be able to turn the property around and donate or sell it to a CDC?
I assume the thought behind this is that the Owner of a property has a vested interest in bettering the property next door. If they restricted this to contiguous Owners who are Residents of said contiguous property, I would think they would get a better outcome… or… is that what “if the contiguous parcel is entitled to the standard property tax deduction” means?
It appears that for some reason this bill has been withdrawn.