Comments
Xanny t1_itcrvm5 wrote
I live on Pratt St and there are plenty of vacants around here but its not a food desert, we have the Food Depot and Pricerite nearby, plus the area is serviced by Citylink Purple and Blue and the cirulator orange terminates at the Pricerite. I think areas like this definitely make sense to put a concentrated effort into rehabbing the vacants, especially when all it really needs to be accessible is some protected bike lanes into downtown.
dopkick t1_itctfla wrote
Completely agreed. There is plenty of housing stock that is actually close to some stuff - transportation, groceries, jobs, etc. Why not start there? I truly don't understand this weird obsession with the abandoned city blocks full of homes that look like a warzone.
sllewgh t1_itd3vj2 wrote
>I truly don't understand this weird obsession with the abandoned city blocks full of homes that look like a warzone.
You're the one with that obsession. No specific location was ever given for where in the city this might happen. You're the one assuming that's where it would be.
Mikel32 t1_iti9vp6 wrote
Pratt St resident here as well. What we saw happen in Highlandtown a decade or so ago is slowly happening in Mount Clare/Union Square/Hollins Market. We are getting a bad name over here due to the drug crime. We are also not a food desert nor are we a night life desert. We have a handful of good bars and restaurants that are not gaining traction because the word of mouth is to be afraid of anything west of MLK. Don’t listen to the influencers hyping of Atlas bullshit or bad bougie Canton spots.
Xanny t1_itjgg88 wrote
That being said, MLK is an abomination that needs to be like, put underground or something? I have no idea. Compare President St to MLK and its obvious one was made to cut half the city off. It isn't just a matter of trying to reduce it, maybe build bridges over it?
blooperduper33 t1_itcmcsh wrote
I mean, they are talking about once they are fixed up right? Not like moving people in destroyed houses? Are you suggesting we leave them destroyed and just fully abandon these neighborhoods forever?
hijinked t1_itcqz91 wrote
A lot of these are beyond repair.
jabbadarth t1_itculj9 wrote
And even the ones that are repairable would cost tens if not hundreds of thousands to fix and take months for each one.
More often than not demolishing and buying new is a cheaper and easier option especially once the roof fails enough to les water in.
Douseigh t1_itgvlmz wrote
And each day they age more and more, in a generation these will be like rehabbing that old ass farm house in the woods
dopkick t1_itcqwx5 wrote
For now, yes - bulldoze them and turn them into open spaces with local plants for pollinators. There is plenty of housing stock that is not in the absolute worst possible areas that can be rehabbed for a fraction of the cost and with a fraction of the challenges.
This will also, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden on maintaining public services in these areas. We have water/sewer/gas/etc. in place for a population over double Baltimore's actual population and it's all aging. Low pressure gas lines are being replaced with medium pressure lines because the old lines have corroded to where they are full of holes that are plugged by dirt.
Unlike many other cities, Baltimore is NOT in high demand and land does not command a premium value. There is plenty of supply, even if there is a large spike in demand. We don't need ambitious programs to rehab the absolute worst blocks in the city.
Xanny t1_itcrpxj wrote
It would make sense in the short term to subsidize relocating straggler residents and bulldozing the highest vacancy rate blocks (80%+). The city can take the land and sell it out if someone wants to redevelop, but for now leaving them up just perpetuates crime and destitution.
ParetoEfficiency t1_itd43po wrote
I think you hit the nail on the head. People that think these homes are worth saving should spend some time on a construction site and realize how costly, dangerous, and totally not worth it would be to try to rehab these blocks.
sllewgh t1_itcpgxt wrote
Typical unfounded, unspecific pessimism from someone offering no solutions. Yes, many vacant properties are not habitable, but many absolutely are. Vacants in poor condition are not an argument against this type of policy until we've run out of good ones.
dopkick t1_itcr5wb wrote
The vacant properties in good shape and are inhabitable are NOT the ones in the picture in the article. Also, the article states...
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
Those abandoned city neighborhoods are NOT the ones with habitable vacant properties.
sllewgh t1_itcrk05 wrote
So your opposition to this policy is rooted in the condition of the vacant in the picture? Do I have that right?
dopkick t1_itct195 wrote
Did you conveniently miss the part where I quoted
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
Because that picture IS a picture of the mentioned "abandoned city neighborhoods." Don't take my word for it, go visit yourself. I promise you there will be abundant parking available.
Also did you miss the part of history where building isolated high density housing for marginalized populations led to crime and decay and those are now being torn down in favor of mixed income housing? That happened across the country, including here in Baltimore. Turns out "let's throw the poor people facing significant challenges and with limited resources into camps" wasn't actually a recipe for success.
I really don't see how you could possibly argue in favor of putting a bunch of Afghan refugees, as an example, in an area with no jobs, poor transportation, and plenty of crime. They already had their entire lives uprooted and face tons of barriers to success. Do we need to make it even harder? Why can't they be within walking distance of Fells Point, as an example, so they can have employment options available to them without the need for a car or figuring out how to navigate some shitty bus system? There's plenty of housing stock available for that.
sllewgh t1_itctjzn wrote
Ok, but do you understand that this is a news article and the vacants in that picture are an editor illustrating the content of the article, and not literally the exact units they're "considering"? You're just making up your own facts here about where, when, and how this would be done.
dopkick t1_itcu5am wrote
So you're saying the author didn't intend to refer to abandoned city blocks despite referring to them in both words and the picture? And the author instead meant to refer to entirely different properties instead but provided no contextual clues to this, leaving it as an exercise to the reader to jump through hoops to figure out what is actually intended? Brings back memories of textbooks with "the proof is left as an exercise to the reader" kind of statements.
sllewgh t1_itcvasx wrote
>So you're saying the author didn't intend to refer to abandoned city blocks despite referring to them in both words and the picture?
Here is what you said:
>Because that picture IS a picture of the mentioned "abandoned city neighborhoods."
That's false. The article is not referring to the homes in the picture, it's referring to vacants in general. The article does not reference any specific locations this would happen whatsoever, so all your criticism is based on facts you invented yourself.
There are plenty of habitable, good vacants in this city to be filled.
dopkick t1_itcvq9v wrote
The article literally says
> Seeding abandoned city neighborhoods with enough immigrant households to build real communities is just an idea now. But it is under serious consideration.
I think you need to visit these abandoned city neighborhoods. The places that are generally habitable are not abandoned. Run down with some vacants, yes, but not abandoned.
sllewgh t1_itcwiwt wrote
I've visited them plenty. I've gone door to door talking to poor folks in just about every area of the city. I help run a community garden in Harlem Park. I've personally observed the purchase, renovation, and occupation of a vacant as described in this article. I've helped establish community land trusts and I helped fight to secure a permanent source of funding from the city for projects like this. How about you take a look at your own ignorance before you assume mine?
Plenty of people are living decent lives in these neighborhoods you're writing off. There are plenty of problems to be solved, sure, but you've got the audacity to accuse me of ignorance when you don't know a damn thing about the people actually living in places like this.
baltimorecalling t1_itc5cby wrote
Rehabbing these properties is not viable for most.
Even if someone finds a vacant with 'good bones', it's a lot of money, permitting, inspections, time to get one of these rehabbed.
On top of that, you have material costs, and labor costs. And even if a significant portion of the people buying these vacants have the skills to do the work, the permitting process requires licensed contractors for many of the jobs, so trying to save money by going DIY is not usually an option.
On top of all of that, you have issues with lead paint, asbestos, etc.
A lot of these vacants just need to be razed.
Xanny t1_itcsl9z wrote
I looked into trying to do vacant rehabs for MD contractors licenses require 2 years of W-2 labor related to contracting. I've built houses with my dad and done my own work in PA, but even when I did part time at his construction co I wasn't getting pay stubs, I was being paid cash after the day, as a lot of handymen in the area are. That requirement for traceable employment history makes the ability to get a contractors license to pull permits in the city, I feel, almost impossible.
Requiring additional inspections of someone with less qualifications that they have to pay out of pocket, sure, go for it. But I can do the work, but I have no way to prove I can that meets these requirements. Previous coworkers can't just vouch for me.
Immigrants will not be able to rehab anything if they can't get contractors licensing and pull permits. I'd love to see MD law amended so there is some way to circumvent that 2 years of W-2 requirement.
CookieMonster932 t1_itczf1l wrote
Thanks for sharing, I’ve wondered what roadblocks people faced in developing or rehabbing these properties. What percentage of people working in the business actually get W2?
mtneer2010 t1_itdjjtg wrote
I'm confused, are you saying you're working off the books and not paying taxes?
Doing rehab/reno jobs should require licenses and permits. Way too many DIYers who "know what they're doing" botch these jobs and it makes the situation dangerous for people living there, because they cut corners to save a buck
baltimorecalling t1_itdpkbj wrote
The house next to me is being rehabbed by people who don't know what they're doing. I had 2 gas shut-offs at my house because we thought we had a gas leak. Turns out: it was theirs.
I had to get a stop work order issued, because it was dangerous and expensive for me (First time, BGE shut OUR gas off, and didn't trace the problem to the obvious construction next door. We had to pay AJ Michaels a pretty penny to clear our gas tag that same day).
pestercat t1_itefngq wrote
This. Fucking flippers plus a worthless (and astonishingly overpaid) inspector wrecked our lives. Had to go deep into debt to fix their mistakes enough to sell, then live with family for five awful years saving up and paying down debt before we could buy again.
Still remember our proper contractor when he and one of his men were working on our masonry. All I could hear over their music was "this is not to American building standards at all! This is ridiculous!" repeated over and over at ascending volumes.
Crazy_Fruit_Lady t1_itf1447 wrote
Thank you for this insight.
okdiluted t1_itc7jmx wrote
it'd be amazing if money for adequate public housing was ever allocated—all of these costs are better at scale, and starting a government program to rehab abandoned homes to be turned into housing for refugees and public housing that would start to make a dent in the shortage of section 8 properties would be amazing for the community--steady, skilled labor jobs would be brought into the city, local materials suppliers would have to be used (government has pretty stringent rules mandating that sometimes!), and vacant housing would have to be restored up to code and be consistent with each other instead of like twenty different contractors and DIYers all doing things their own way and hoping nobody'll notice if they get weird with it. like, there's a way to do this, it'll just never get done because allocating a relatively small amount of money to communities (small in terms of our government's spending anyways) is "wasteful" or "the money isn't there" or it's "unprofitable" but like, the defense department or wherever needs an ever-expanding blank check, so.
gaytee t1_itcq4tq wrote
And the problem usually exists that fixing one isn’t really an option. You might get lucky and fix an end unit, or a unit surrounded by neighbors that have been fixed up, but for the majority of these actually vacant blocks, fixing one doesn’t make a different and you’d need to repair the whole block.
ok_annie t1_itchhcd wrote
Is lead and asbestos abatement easier/cheaper when destroying a building than when renovating it? In my head it would be harder to contain if you’re tearing a building down, but I have no idea how these things work.
[deleted] t1_itdwq7u wrote
[removed]
Ocean2731 t1_itd5sm0 wrote
There’s also the issue of jobs. People moved away when Bethlehem Steel and Boeing left/scaled down and the port became more mechanized. Renovate those houses, but the person moving in needs a reason to be in the city.
plain-rice t1_itcdh4d wrote
Another thing you forgot to mention about the DYI and permitting is that the buildings have to be accurate to the historical style. So that bathroom or that extra room that was built in the 50s with no permit has to be torn down.
sllewgh t1_itcpqsf wrote
That's false. Only buildings with historic designation are subject to regulations like that.
Shojo_Tombo t1_itcs35s wrote
Yep. My century house was sold as a HUD home to flippers. It was most definitely not restored to its historic period specs.i wish it was!
brewtonone t1_itbxsum wrote
Problem is most need to be knocked down due to structural issues. There aren’t many that can be rehab. Those that can are usually sold at tax sales.
But you would hope it would help local homeless before all others.
sllewgh t1_itcpy6s wrote
> Those that can are usually sold at tax sales. > >But you would hope it would help local homeless before all others.
And there's the benefit. People are dismissing this idea based on the bad vacants, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Angel3 t1_itc21i6 wrote
Last thing anyone needs is another marginalized community with lead poisoning.
xxl_gal t1_itc3p2n wrote
So you'll let them stay at your place then? 😁
Angel3 t1_itc44tj wrote
Don’t be an ass. The state needs to finally mandate the full remediation of lead from these buildings. Until then, I’d rather see small tent cities where at least people aren’t being poisoned for the want of a roof.
neverinamillionyr t1_itciczf wrote
Likely cheaper to just tear them down.
sllewgh t1_itd3cpv wrote
Winter is coming. If you asked someone about to face it without shelter, lead poisoning would be very far down their list of concerns. I'm not saying we shouldn't get the lead out of these places, but to say tent cities are preferable shows ignorance of the needs of the homeless.
Angel3 t1_itd56by wrote
Would you rather sleep in a tent or in a house that was guaranteed to cause you and your children life long brain damage? This isn’t ignoring the needs of the homeless, they need SAFE housing.
sllewgh t1_itd6tdi wrote
>I'm not saying we shouldn't get the lead out of these places, but to say tent cities are preferable shows ignorance of the needs of the homeless
dopkick t1_itc97rd wrote
Sure, mixed income housing is highly preferable to throwing a bunch of marginalized people in the least desirable parts of the city.
xxl_gal t1_itcebx9 wrote
How can we help direct more funds towards marginalized immigrant communities? There should be a system in place to take them all in and house/feed/etc them
VRisNOTdead t1_itcm5ax wrote
by posting about it on reddit of course
[deleted] t1_itdy2ow wrote
[removed]
Willothwisp2303 t1_itbzvzk wrote
Lead paint, mold, and substandard housing awaits you! What could go wrong.
jesuswazacommie t1_itc64te wrote
Once again with the, "Here you go immigrant: turn this shit into gold with the magic of your superhuman resourcefulness." I used to work in refugee resettlement. Here's the thing about our immigration policies that no one wants to talk about: immigration policies, low minimum wage, and criminalization of poverty are what maintains the wage slave class in this country on which the wealthy have always relied. Our funneling of resources to the wealthy, low wages, and drug use to medicate our frustration and pain create a vortex of desperation that pushes people out of their homes in places like Mexico, Central and South America and encourages them to be drawn north on the gamble of finding prosperity in jobs at pay rates that most Americans will not work for. If we forgave or even restructured loans to those countries, tied the federal minimum wage to housing costs, de-criminalized drugs, and put a lot more into treatment and education, immigration would not be such a "problem". Also, when a certain party finally realizes that its shrinking demographic of voters needs to be more diverse and they stop being so blatantly anti-immigrant and racist, most immigrants will switch parties because most are religious and socially conservative, which will severely hurt the other party in many states and cities. Immigration is neither the fix for every problem nor the source of every problem.
dopkick t1_itc9uac wrote
Best part is the people pitching these solutions would NEVER, EVER come even remotely close to possibly starting to consider the idea of moving anywhere close to those neighborhoods. No chance.
sllewgh t1_itcq20e wrote
What does that matter?
A_P_Dahset t1_iteug8r wrote
>Also, when a certain party finally realizes that its shrinking demographic of voters needs to be more diverse and they stop being so blatantly anti-immigrant and racist, most immigrants will switch parties because most are religious and socially conservative, which will severely hurt the other party in many states and cities.
This part. Well-stated and very insightful.
CookieMonster932 t1_itczpun wrote
Tying minimum wage to housing costs…that’s a really fascinating idea. Any research/papers on that?
jesuswazacommie t1_itfe48s wrote
Nope. And, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will say that it would make the whole economic system collapse. Of course, we'd also have to raise the wages of everyone below the poverty line by an equal percentage and tax the rich at a reasonable rate and get this all passed through a congress that is entirely made-up of millionaire corporate whores, but when the dust settles, we'd all be better off.
BJJBean t1_itcp4l8 wrote
Just throw a Molotov cocktail into these vacants and be done with them. So tired of hearing about all these idiotic plans to house people in these rotten houses which need at least $100K each in work before they are in a livable condition.
yyyyy25ui t1_itctq7s wrote
Nailed it. The cost is about 100-125k to make a shell livable
AmericanNewt8 t1_itddzv7 wrote
Yeah honestly at this point the city should be levelling entire blocks and then redeveloping them in that way. Often the few remaining inhabited homes in these areas are seriously compromised due to the rest of the rowhomes being shells and or asbestos/lead paint issues of their own.
sacrificebundt t1_itc88ch wrote
I don’t see the downside to someone sinking tens of millions of dollars into the city to fix up hundreds of vacants and then finding thousands of people who are willing to move into those neighborhoods. I don’t think it’ll happen, but it’d be good if it did.
Clutch_Floyd t1_itc5n43 wrote
How about rehabing for the current homeless?
MuffinRat84 t1_itc6c80 wrote
Why not both?
Clutch_Floyd t1_itc7ai6 wrote
Sure if they are legal.
MuffinRat84 t1_itc8j3f wrote
Didn't see the word illegal anywhere in this post or the article, not sure how that factors into your feelings on this. There are plenty of lawful immigrants that need homes that you can still be afraid of, don't worry.
Commercial_Tone2383 t1_itdoufe wrote
Who’s paying for either?
BmoresFnst t1_itcwg6u wrote
Community Land Trusts. Community takes back the property/land. Prevents outside flips and housing market manipulation. Lots of these projects take years and years. Permits are infinite. Not sure how land trusts work with regard to funding but it did South Baltimore a lot of good. Doesn’t look like the same place. The city isn’t going to do anything. Community and neighbors have to put in the work. Always been that way. Neighborhoods… everyone knows everyone. Takes one leader with heart to make a difference.
S-Kunst t1_itdl7zw wrote
Many are not in favor of rehabbing older buildings. They believe that all old buildings are not salvageable. The fact is that many are, and yes many will have to go. Where the problem is located has to do with the way in which construction of row houses is cheapest lies in clear cutting the land of old buildings then constructing new. But the hidden cost is that of clearing the land of the old. If a developer does not pay for that then they see it as easy. This is why farm land is so desirable to suburban developers. If the developer has to clear the land of many trees then their costs jump up and the end cost his higher. In the end we are talking about flimsy stick build houses if all new. If only some houses are demoed, sturdy frame filler construction could be used and would make for reinforcing the extant buildings.
I would propose that each house, in a block be surveyed for its soundness. It is not rocket science. Then those which are not stable will be cut out and new frame constructed houses inserted, much the way a dentist does not pull all one's teeth to insert new ones. Salvaged brick could be used for the facade or for interior structural support. A brick facade, matching the original would keep the general appearance of the block and not looks like a cheap dentist job.
My real fear is that many solid houses will be lost and the desire for cheap replacement, along with off the shelf construction design will dictate the bad suburban designs will be used. This is seen all over the city, where each decade streets are clear-cut and new cheap suburban modular houses appear.
I also cannot help but wonder if developers who are chosen are favorites of inside movers and shakers. I remember housing commissioner Henson, who was in charge of the Sand town-Winchester money pit.
Millennialcel t1_itcvjwa wrote
Flooding Baltimore with new immigrants is like throwing gas on a fire to put it out. Baltimore needs jobs, not immigrants.
roccoccoSafredi t1_itdl8o0 wrote
Baltimore has plenty of jobs.
People might just not have the skills for them or the access to them.
Dmt123410 t1_iteh82i wrote
What a joke
Commercial_Tone2383 t1_itdo73w wrote
Burn them to the ground or bulldoze them. Then plant trees or something. For many blocks in the city, there should be absolutely no mental effort put into turning vacants into housing
MP_APHIA t1_itdfi16 wrote
Given the fact that the housing stock is in very poor shape I would think not. If you buy one of these row houses in the city you may get it for cheap but you certainly are going to have to put some money into it if you want to be comfortable and sometimes if you want it to even be habitable. Many of those properties don't even have occupancy permits and that means back and forth with code enforcement. If you're going to put money into rehab you just as well get new housing stock and demolish all of the old stuff.
Jrbobfishman t1_itf17eo wrote
Oh great. Mayor Scott burns another 4 million from our American Rescue federal money that should have been used to fix our crumbling infrastructure, schools or help businesses impacted by the pandemic. He is spending our money on lottery tickets when he should be buying groceries
Chairkicker704 t1_itg8vh2 wrote
Rehabbing these houses, for either use by immigration, the people in the neighborhoods now or homeless is just putting a bandaid on a literal bullet wound. Until the violence in the streets in stopped, nothing but bulldozers should be brought in to level these eyesores. A culture of violence and victimization has been cultivated and promoted by those living in these neighborhoods, and it needs to be rooted out and changed. Bringing in new people will only inject more victims to these areas and start the cycle over again. Baltimore needs to gentrify, or at the very least clean up, these neighborhoods and the first step would be to tear down these derelicts and stop the incubation of violence.
[deleted] t1_itbt5hd wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_itbxehd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itec1t1 wrote
[deleted]
Notonfoodstamps t1_itedhag wrote
Money has never been the issue. Political willpower has.
You could rehab every last vacant in the city for ~$1.5 billion. Which is a drop in the bucket compared to how much fucking money is flowing into redevelopment projects in the city right now.
Jack_Ash_ t1_itezzrp wrote
Nonstarter
[deleted] t1_itftwzi wrote
[removed]
MewseyWindhelm t1_itqdddn wrote
they shouldnt get free housing. Enough of this bullshit.
Same_Earth_9232 t1_itbwg8l wrote
Now that’s a decent idea
[deleted] t1_itce66m wrote
[deleted]
Xanny t1_itcssnc wrote
A lot are unemployable and can't afford or are unable to upkeep a house even if given one. We need safety nets to house them, but you can't really stick them in townhouses and expect them to still be livable in five years.
Bonethug609 t1_itc4th3 wrote
It’s a nice idea, but the houses really aren’t liveable Or able to be salvaged. Maybe putin can bomb some of the vacant city blocks in Baltimore instead of Ukraine. Help the Ukrainians and city of Baltimore at the same time!
[deleted] t1_itby256 wrote
[deleted]
CookieMonster932 t1_itc0zvo wrote
It’s going to cost over 100k to rehab each vacant, unless the city or the immigrants have that money, it’s not financially possible.
dopkick t1_itc8yur wrote
Can the romanticizing of vacant properties stop already? Pretty sure I’ve seen vacant properties pitched on here as the solution to damn near everything - homelessness, drug addiction, poverty, crime, etc. I’m sure they’ll be the answer to COVID by the end of the year.
I feel like a fair number of people have never seen these largely abandoned neighborhoods. The homes are generally shells full of hazards, at best. You’ll see trees growing out of windows and where the roof should be. The remaining bricks are of questionable integrity, with some homes having portions crumble. The remains of the interior are often full of lead, needles, and garbage.
These places are generally not close to very much. They’ll be smack dab in the middle of food deserts dryer than the Sahara. Nearby jobs will be nonexistent and transportation options will be limited. Oh and for funsies let’s put groups historically reluctant to call the police (immigration concerns or whatever) in locations surrounded by high crime. What could possibly go wrong?
This whole bullshit about vacant properties being the answer to everything but those dastardly rich Texans keep buying them up and prevent Baltimore from turning a corner is dumb. It’s starting to approach COVID-19 Bill Gates 5G mind control vaccine level of stupidity.