Council delays on proposal to deal with vacant and abandoned homes

Let's just wait til every homeowner in Batavia has an abandoned property next door to them which at the rate we are going should be very soon. I'll take a walk around my city see who on council has an abandoned home next to their house and who doesn't.

In my opinion, as a resident of the City, the Council should have moved on this years ago and the longer they delay addressing these issues, whether they address them through tax exemptions or other methods, the faster the City is going to decline.

My wife and I chose Batavia for its small neighborly feel and its proximity to Rochester and Buffalo (she works in one City, I work in the other). We moved to Batavia about two years ago into what we believed was a good neighborhood. While we have some great neighbors, the quality of life has steadily declined over the past two years. The primary problems are drugs, rentals/absentee landlords and so-called "zombie houses."

While philosophically tax exemptions are not first on my list of proposed "solutions", given the problems Batavia has regarding vacant/abandoned homes and rentals, something has to be done and done quickly. While we are working with our neighbors to try to address the problems in our neighborhood while we are living here, at this point we are planning to move out of the area as soon as we can. Why would any young family choose to live next door to drug dealers, vacant homes and absentee landlords if they could avoid doing so?

Frankly, the City Council representatives are out of their minds if they think they are going to attract long-term residents without dealing with these problems swiftly. For my family's sake - and for the sake of other young families throughout the City - I hope the Council begins to deal with these issues soon.

"Molino said the idea that current homeowners are missing out on something is a misunderstanding what the tax exemption is about."

Kind of tired of reading this particular explanation in response to citizen opinions.

Added on edit: I happen to think the citizens of Batavia are intelligent and understand most issues quite well.

I think this is a good idea. It is one more way to try and address the problem of abandoned properties. It is a shame it was delayed, but it is clear it will pass in two weeks.

This is a good idea, and should be extended to the county via the legislature. I am one of the unfortunate home owners who had to abandon their home. The mortgage company won't even foreclose, and you can't get a real estate agent to list the property.

So the property sits in Limdo.

It is a growing problem that can have a good ending. Waiting three years for a tax auction takes too long. We need a short cut, and this sounds like the answer.

Well said Mr. Guza!!

Thank you, Mr. Urtel.

I'm In favor of insentives to resolve the abandoned home problem. I didn't agree on the first proposal, a 25 year 100% tax break, as I thought it was too much. The next proposal was for a sliding scale on the last 8 years with 100% on the other years. I suggested a change to a sliding scale on the last 10 years so it was fairly balanced. Council directed the city manager to make the change and have it ready for the next business meeting. People have criticized when council rushed resolutions through during the budget process so I think it's proper to wait two weeks for public comments and to get this right the first time. There will still be plenty of time to go through the lenghly NY state process for this to become law.

"The homeowner would still pay taxes on the original assessed value."

Why would anyone be opposed to this and let these properties fall into even greater disrepair - being a tax burden instead of part of the tax base? GCEDC continues to shell out many more of our tax dollars for corporate welfare to profitable and growing companies and not a word is said.

This proposal simply slows the growth of tax assessment as the owner occupied properties are improved. I see it as nothing but a win.

I do not agree .. Who will decide what property will get this tax abatement? Malino wants to give a tax abatement on the difference on the value when bought and the amount of money invested to make repairs and bring it up to code..I get that those cost could be more than what the house is worth..But many homeowners invest in kitchens and other remodeling projects that when all is said and done does not returned back 100% of amount invested..There is no gap funding to help you pay for that kitchen remodel...Maybe i am missing how this tax abatement program works..But one thing it does show is that tax rates are to high and these gimmicks have to be used to incentivise someone to buy property..

As long as we have a property tax then tax all the same ..If your property is worth 80,000 then you pay property tax on that amount......

Malino made this statement..In some cases, it would return properties back to tax roles that previous owners have abandoned and allowed to go into foreclosure.

The city just had an auction on property that was foreclosed on .Some were dumps and they sold without this tax abatement program..In fact the city made money.....So i guess that statement doesn't hold up...

Why has the insanity of giving out tax breaks ["incentives"] to more and more "select" groups of people become the status quo? Does anyone remember learning about "no taxation without representation"? Wasn't that representation supposed to be for all equally? Where is the equal representation in tax breaks, incentives, subsidies for just some, and not all??!!!!!!

Brian, probably for the same reason home owners who do not have children still pay school taxes. Why should those who do not benefit from school services because they have no children have to pay the school tax?

Let's face the reality, Batavia is a welfare city. It has a disproportionately large number of residents who are in one Social Services program or another. With the DSS system paying excessive amounts for housing in the City of Batavia for it's clients [up to $900/mo for a single resident in a city where rent is already to damn high]... throw in some tax breaks and maybe attract some new slum lords.

WAIT A MINUTE! "it simply isn't financially realistic to expect somebody to invest tens of thousands of dollars to save a home that has limited value *in a market not known for a rapid increase real estate values*". Doesn't the last part of that comment apply to all the homeowners in the neighborhoods of a vacant house where Manager Molino wants to give a new owner a tax break?!!! Hey Jason, how about giving everyone in those "market[s] not known for a rapid increase real estate values" the same tax break.

Ray, It's because they live in NYS, USA.

So Brain would leave the abandoned homes as is. Great idea from someone who has no idea.

To qualify for this, the buyer has to live in the home. No flipping the property. One or more of the following would have to be meet 1)The City has already taken title to the property as an abandoned property 2) It has been vacant continuously for at least 3 years 3) The City has title due to foreclosure for unpaid taxes 4) The property has violations that cost more than the property value.

Is this the magic wand to fix everything, no. But it is one more way to do something about ABANDONED properties. Brian offers whining and tears, but no real life solutions.

The city just auctioned properties off...They were all bought...No tax break needed....

Auctions are just one option now. This new plan will be another one.

Brian, read the article. These incentives are for owner occupied properties.

Auctions are what attract slumlords. Get it cheap, slap up some paneling, fix the holes in the walls, and rent it to welfare recipients because the rent payment is guaranteed.

OK, so I stand corrected on the owner occupancy point. I still don't agree with government subsidies, handout or tax breaks unless everyone gets it equally, in which case, why not just let the people keep their money to begin with. The government requires our taxes and then redistributes the money... sort of a re4ligious thing I guess.
http://thinkprogress.org/home/2014/05/09/3436223/pope-the-bible-calls-f…

NO, Brian would not "leave the abandoned homes as is"... where did you conjure that mis-characterization from John?

BTW John, I get a kick out of your intentional misspelling of my first name... real class.

Brian, then what is your plan to take care of properties that are abandoned and deteriorated, but still salvageable? You do not like this one, so what is yours

I have to ask if this idea (or similar idea) has been implemented in other small city/towns in our situation (as i am aware this is not a unique situation and its happening all over the USA)? (so there should be plenty of examples out there)
How has it worked and how could we learn from there mistakes in there plan?
I do believe there is a plan that will work, just lets do it right the first time!!

I been thinking about this a Lil bit , is it possible to do a 5 years sliding tax break and help pay closing cost and work with a local bank to take on a mortgage of 50k or less( most banks kind of just laugh when you say its only 40k) i can say this because iv recently been approved for a home loan for 120k.

I looked at cheap houses in the city just so i could keep more money in my pocket. I've been told by a few banks if its under 50k that there not making any money and there not going to finance it!!

Im currently in the process of purchasing my first home for 85k and no its not in the city or any where near it!!!

hi john, still looking for ideas of what to do with the ABANDONED houses?
I give you an idea, take the tax break money and tear them down. now may I say NO more tax breaks to anyone unless we all get one.? no whining or tears here, just a solution.

David, abandoned does not always mean unsafe or that they can not still be rehabbed and brought back on the tax rolls.

I agree, there are houses that the City probably should condemn and tear down. It might mean a tax increase to pay for it, but I think it might be worth it.

But if an abandoned house can be rehabbed and put back on the tax rolls, I don't want to tear it down.

Now if you think spending tax money to tear down a house that could be back on the tax rolls if the new owner gets a break is a good idea just because you don't get a tax break also, well OK.

Me I'd rather keep the house and get the taxes instead of spending tax money to take it down. That is just a difference of opinion.

I agree with Brian and David. Tear them down! This town is already loaded with welfare homes.Rehabbing these houses and turning them into HUD approved welfare houses just to be on the tax roll is not helping Batavia and that is mostly what becomes of them.

We have one of these rehabbed homes on our street. I suppose we are lucky to only have one in an otherwise quiet neighborhood. It was bought by an investor out of Rochester and turned into 2 HUD approved overpriced apartments. Guess what house gets visited by the police and probation officers at least once or twice a week? The house consists of a backpack crew who walks down to the corner at all hours of the night meeting cars at the corner for brief encounters. Hmmm, I wonder what that`s all about? Oh well, good news, that house is on the tax roll!! Get real, Batavia is in trouble! I think we have a lot more to worry about than tax dollars.

Jim, this proposed idea is not for "welfare" homes. They must be owner occupied, single family homes. If the owner sells, the tax break goes away, it is not transferable. They can NOT be rental units.

I still feel that they should be putting their concerns into cleaning up some of the existing problems over worrying about tax breaks for certain homeowners. If they want to attract investment like the article states then clean up the welfare state that Batavia has become.

Jim, they have to do it all.

The Zombie Law needs to be passed by the State to hold banks accountable.
Code enforcement equally applied. Equal enforcement for all.
Get property that has been abandoned back on the tax rolls if possible.
Demolish unsafe buildings that can not be rehabbed or sold.

No one approach will work by itself

The equal code enforcement is one that REALLY needs fixing! I rented for 8 years from one of the slumlords in town. I planted flowers and landscaped, decorated for holidays, etc. I tried to make the place presentable and always paid my rent early. Meanwhile the roof was falling off and leaking, he finally painted it as cheap as possible because the city finally forced his hand after years of the place looking terrible. The plaster ceiling fell in and I was informed it was probably horse hair asbestos. The leaking roof caused a mold problem. The foundation is broken and the stray cats live in the basement. I could go on and on. When I asked to fix these problems, I was given a letter stating they weren`t going to renew my lease because of some bs excuse that they needed my apartment empty because it was the nicest one in the building and it would help to sell the place. This letter came while I was in the hospital finding out I had renal failure and would be starting dialysis! Needless to say this was almost 3 years ago and the place never sold and has become far worse according to a friend of mine who still lives in an apartment there. This guy is praised in Batavia and I find it to be a joke. At the same time the city was all over the guy next door to do some touch up painting on a couple windows! A lot depends on who you are, who you know and how much money you have in this town.

Jim, come to council and name names. Look Molino in the face and ask why he is not doing something. Give the address when you are there. Nothing like a bit of public exposure to get things done.

It took awhile, but public exposure finally got 35 Swan Street cleaned up.

Amazing, it`s the same guy!

Tax breaks aside, Mr. Guza`s earlier comment sums up the current state of Batavia. No misconception there.

I understand everyone’s frustration about code enforcement and the abandoned properties. The tax-breaks to get the abandoned houses as SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY back on the tax rolls is a good idea.

On August 8, 2014 my wife Cindy and I received a “VIOLATION NOTICE” in the mail from the City of Batavia for our home on Washington Avenue.

The VIOLATION NOTICE was for a tree branch from our ornamental tree overhanging the sidewalk. I was given 7 days to correct the problem and I did.

At that time there were multiple and serious applicable code violations at the 35 Swan Street property; including health, safety and environmental issues that were in violation for 4 ½ years.

I went to the Council Meeting to confront Council and Jason Molino. This was followed by going public with an editorial in the Daily News

http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/blogs/commentary_and_letters/article_…

I kept the pressure up about the blatant favoritism in code enforcement; particularly when they are Mr. Molino’s favorite friends. Jason Molino needs to go and his enablers and enforcers on Council need to be voted out.

The favoritism in code enforcement is one of the many reasons I am running for Council in November in the THIRD WARD.

I disagree with your statement....

Third, tearing down the houses solves nothing. First, if that were the decision, it would be taxpayers paying for tearing down the homes, which is a great waste of taxpayer money. And vacant lots in residential neighborhoods can lead to problems and they bring down property values.

.If anything on Manhattan Ave,tearing down those houses would allow the homeowner on either side of them to buy the lot and make their yard bigger.This at the same time would enhance the value of there home..Many of these houses have such a small yard that is stops many from buying..So to me it does solve alot....With a declining population in the city you need less housing..

Mark, there is also the possibility that the homeowners on either side would not buy the property, and just let be a vacant lot.

But if a house is unsafe and can not be salvaged, tear it down. if taxpayers have to pay, not much can be done about it.

But you insist on talking about a different problem. This suggested program is for homes that are just abandoned, but livable with some work. They are to be owner occupied and put back on the tax rolls. What is wrong with that?

Not too sure why you mix dilapidated, unsafe, with a plan to put livable property back on the tax rolls.

The city allready has funds called community development grants that can and should be used for these houses.....I don't think that property taxes were set up to be used to influence behavior........

I'd like to point out though that there needs to be some language in the law regarding the owner occupied status be continuous for the time of the abatement. Also John is wrong, these houses can still become hud or "welfare" homes if they are made into apartments. As long as the owner lives in one of the apartments it will qualify for this. The basic model for beginning landlords in buildings with 2 or more apartments is living in the building while rents pay mortgage and taxes then turning the equity into capital for purchasing another building. Making them hud or "welfare" homes just makes the income flow more reliable.

So making owner occupation mandatory for the life of the abatement would eliminate these concerns.

Kyle, no I am right. The language is already in the proposal that the tax break is only for the original owner, for the length of the abatement.

It must be a SINGLE family house, NO apartments, NO rental. If the owner sells, the tax break goes.

Now true, if the owner later sells to someone else, the tax break goes away and then the property could be rented out by the new owner. Converting would have to go through the planning board. But there would be no tax break.

Mark, your idea would use tax money to fix a house, then hope somebody buys the abandoned house that would then probably will cost more than the assessment. And if it does not sell, we are out the tax money and still not getting any property taxes.

You would spend taxpayer money and hope for a buyer, instead of having somebody spend their own money first to buy the house, put it back on the tax rolls, and then improve the property for a small tax break.

Most of these houses are vacant or abandoned for a reason and a small tax break isn`t going to be enough to intrigue a person to live in some of the areas they are in. There`s a reason some of these houses have been on the market for years. Too many of you on here bring everything down to tax dollars! If we cleaned the town up a little you wouldn`t have to lure homeowners with tax breaks in the first place. Again re-read Mr. Guza`s comment from earlier and it sums it all up perfectly. He tried to live here and drugs and a crap neighborhood is making him want to leave. This is becoming quite common for our area.

Jim,

Its all about taxes.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/undeniable-proof-that-government-doesnt-c…

"First, this treats all homeowners and equal homeowners equally. Anybody who wishes to buy an abandoned and vacant home, rehab it and then live in it can do it. That's equal for all. If you like your home the way it is and don't want to move, fine, but you had your chance to go after one of these abandoned and vacant homes and fix it up and get the tax break and you took a pass, but you had your equal opportunity."

Howard,
This is very similar to my argument for new marriage laws. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. If you don't like the opposite sex, then you can't get married.

"It should also be noted, a vacant lot generates a lot less tax revenue than an occupied lot. In fact, the loss in revenue from a vacant lot would FAR exceed the value of the proposed tax credits."

Vacant, owned lots generate more income than abandoned properties....

I say torch the buildings as part of a controlled burn to teach a new volunteer fire staff. Two birds, one stone. Then you can provide temporary jobs to clean the lots up. Blight is gone. You can then give away the lot to the owners of the neighboring houses (split it in half) and then up their assessment on the regular cycle. If they don't want to own it, just demand that it is included in any change of ownership of the property.

John my point on community grants funds are to be used by who ever buys the property..Thats what the money is for .It can only be spent that way..The city just received a grant...No tax abatement needed.. just don't see were some one buys a house for lets say 20,000 dollars ..pays that as his assessment ..puts 60,000 dollars in it..Has a house worth 80,000 and only pays property tax on 20,000 dollars for 25 years..And we all know how much tax rates will go up in 25 years..on top of how much property values go up..In ten years or so that house could be worth 120,000 and this person is only paying property tax on the original 20,000....

We pay almost 45 dollars per thousand..So if you get a 60,000 tax abatement it is worth $2700 x 25 years=$67,500...Thats assuming the person lives there the full 25 years and this tax break is on all tax {city ,county and school..}And there is no increase in the tax rate over 25 years and the property value never increased..

Like i said earlier..The city has had many auctions ..They did not need any type of tax abatement to get them sold...

Mark, the proposal is only for 16 years.and by now you should know that if the owner sells, the break ends. It is also only on city taxes, not County or School.

Can not understand why you are willing to try only two ways to solve the problem. Tear down property or give people tax money outright to buy a home. This idea has the buyer use their own money in exchange for a limited tax break on property not bringing in any taxes now.

16 years is still too long..

Auction off the houses just as the way they do now....If taxes are the issue that are stopping people from buying some of these houses then lower the tax rate, if that is the problem..but lower it for all ..What houses have the city taken for non payment of taxes that didn't sell at public auction...The city is willing to create this program but they don't even know how many houses this would involve............They just the other day put out a call to all city residents to report to them what houses in there neighborhood were abandoned.. ...They have no idea .Where is the list? ....

Mark, you would have the property auctioned, meaning they could become rental properties, or you would use taxpayer money to tear them down, even if they can be rehabbed, or use taxpayer money to help people buy them.

Why are you against people suing their own money to buy the house, rehab it and get it back paying taxes, water and sewer, all for a small tax break?

Mark, as someone who's one issue seems to center on taxes you won't like to hear this, but I'd rather pay $1000 more per year in property taxes if it meant my neighborhood was free of these issues. Further, I don't really care if others are paying lower property taxes if they're improving a neighborhood or maintaining a good neighborhood. For those of us trying to start families or with young families, I suspect the tax issue is a non-issue where the choice is between "equal" taxes for all and not raising our families next to drug dealers, slum apartments and abandoned homes.

I don't root for failure...I believe that all should treated the same when it comes to taxation...You pay what your property is worth...I don't think you use taxation to influence behavior...

Mark, how does that square with your being willing to give taxpayer money to someone to buy the property? Are you saying then everyone should get Block Grant money to buy a home?

I am 100% in favor of tax breaks..for everybody though, not just the chosen few. How about if everyone just pays their fair share for the limited, necessary functions of government? The fundamental problem in NYS, Genesee County, the city of Batavia and the schools is that government is too expensive. Much of these costs are imposed by the federal and state governments. But it doesn't end there. The county, city and the school district all find ways to grow their services and consequently their costs. Taxes are too high and a growing number of special interests continue to get selectively targeted for tax abatement through ill advised government pandering. This is why the city finds it necessary to offer tax incentives just to get people to buy a modest home in the city. I find the situation sad. We keep treating symptoms instead of addressing the real problem. I encourage City Council to do everything in it's power to hold the banks responsible for abandoned properties. Instead of providing tax incentives for people to buy abandoned properties, let's start condemning and razing them. The future of this city does not lie in the restoration of abandoned 40K homes. If it does, we are in worse trouble than i thought. There are reasons why people chose to leave those homes in the first place. Those factors won't be changed with a tax break scheme. Enforce the existing city codes. Get a zombie law passed if you need to. But please no more tax abatement schemes.

Jim, it would seem your idea of using tax dollars to tear down a house that could be rehabbed and lived in would be more that the limited tax break would cost. That does not sound like a win to me for the taxpayers.

In Salt Lake City, they have almost eradicated chronic homelessness by putting homeless people into empty houses. Once a person finds the security of a home that is theirs, they will then begin to help themselves out of the other issues which led to their situation. This isn't just some crazy idea, it is fact and has been working over the past 10 years. There are also programs all over the country that can be researched into that place elderly people into small group homes that a medical professional can visit and check in on them. The residents are similar in their conditions and help each other. 4 to 6 per home. People do better in social situations. Another proven fact, that has much data to turn to. there are uses for empty houses and organizations and private individuals who will financially support these kinds of endeavors, if a city or county would get creative and match assets with problems. The one good thing about the city's tax abatement scheme is that it promotes owner-occupied houses, which are key to building a neighborhood, but thats about it. Someone in either this thread or it must have been another one on the same subject, wrote about the difficulty of getting a 40 or 50,000.00 mortgage. That is the hitting the nail on the head. Banks and governments always seem to want to lend money to those who need it less. There has to be a way to help folks who are not earning high incomes (such as say, a yogurt mill worker) and may have not so sterling or non-existent credit get a mortgage. Is it risky, yes. Is it riskier than continuing to let the city devolve? I don't know and frankly I don't care. I don't live, work or own property in Batavia. Its unlikely I ever will, in fact I rarely cross into Batavia. 2 or 3 times a month for short periods. I'm just trying to add in a little food for thought, that's all.

"Blighted" vacant lots...give me a break with the hyperbole Howard. My first preference wouldn't be to tear the houses down but when a house has been stripped of all its copper, left unheated and in some cases exposed to the elements, why is the city trying to do CPR on it? Really, how many abandoned 40k homes do we want to preserve in this city? Is this our future? The substance of my earlier response was to make the important point that high taxes contribute to causing the problem with abandoned properties. Why not respond to the cogent argument in the debate instead of nibbling at the periphery? The answer lies in decreasing the size of government and in the fair treatment of all tax payers. My guess is that the people who are paying the bills will agree.

Jim, the houses you describe probably should be torn down. But they are not the houses being discussed in this resolution.

This tax break is for homes that can be rehabbed. Not all have been stripped or exposed to the weather or are falling down. Some are in rough shape, but can be fixed up.

And again, it will cost more in taxpayer money to tear down a house they can be lived in than the amount of the tax break

Whether you choose to look at it with or without the rose colored glasses Jim, the fact is this is a problem facing many communities nationwide, as you can see only a few that Howard pointed out. Every city in the U.S. has the same, abandoned property issue and the tax payers, especially homeowners, want something done about it.

Our own A.G. re-introduced a bill back in February that would be an expanded version of a measure designed to address vacant and abandoned homes that are in foreclosure. The bill would be aimed at reducing the number of abandoned properties in a state of disrepair that informs the occupant-owners they have the right to remain in the home until a court order directs them to vacate. The bill would also require lenders to maintain and secure vacant properties much earlier in the foreclosure process and a registry of those properties would be made available to local municipalities who have property maintenance laws.

One question one has to ask is why should this abatement be made available to homeowners whose properties are not in a state of disrepair? Those that are in such condition, are so for numerous reasons, and just an FYI Jim, think about the cost to the property owner to make needed upgrades compared to just cutting their losses and abandoning the property all together. Obviously they will take the less expensive way out.

Rochester came up with a good way to deal with vacant land in the city, and it's worked to keep the blight from spreading in neighborhoods.

http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589941695

Your link on what South Carolina does has nothing to do with what we are taking bout here......Its was stated ...In order to qualify for the credit a taxpayer must rehabilitate an abandoned building for commercial use. A building with an immediate preceding use as a single-family residence cannot qualify for the credit.

One of the biggest problems with vacant/abandoned housing hasn't been addressed.
'Government' greed/growth!

Sure. Programs, such as the one being discussed here, might help in the short run. But, for EVERY dollar gained in tax revenue, you can "take it to the bank" that X-amount of cents (from EACH of those $$'s) will end up being misused/squandered/mis-spent by an ever-growing gov't.

There are those of us old enough to remember the 'flurry' created by the "revealation" of the $400 ball peen hammer. Nothing's changed, people! Every year, there is a (senator, I believe) that publishes a list of (federal) gov't overspending/misuse of tax dollars. And, don't think it's just federal taxes being handled in this manner. It creeps downward into the state/county/city/local level, also.

Program-after-program, fees on top of fees, new 'governmental' positions-after-positions, are continually being created to "BETTER THE HUMBLE TAXPAYER'S PLIGHT".

I cry, "BALONEY!"
I cry, "ENOUGH!"

The working people in this country are being taxed to death through corruption/greed/mismanagement. When a local yahoo somewhere (not saying it happens in Batavia, or Gen. County, but it does happen) pulls down a quarter-million-dollar salary, and gets a 5-figure BONUS (for doing what they're hired to do), something stinks in Denmark.

Yes, (SOME) programs are good ideas. But, you can only throw so much __it on a scale 'til it breaks. And, we're approaching that point, slowly, but, surely.

I'm of the age where I might not see the final crumple. As some of you probably won't, either. But, if we don't get a handle on the situation fairly soon, your children and grand-children are gonna be in for a lot of hurt. Instead of spending money on 'trapings' like flower pots on Main St., how about you fix THE STREET, itself?
Instead of spending thousands of $$ on 'walkability studies', or 'bike paths' that'll be used by (probably) less than 3% of the population, how about fixing our infrastructure? Our bridges are deteriorating to the point that it's a crap shoot as to whether daddy is gonna make it home for supper, but our 'leaders' keep spending on 'dressings'!

Better get it right soon, people.

New York's attorney general says there are new provisions to address "zombie properties." They're in an expanded version of a bill he introduced last year. Those vacant or abandoned properties are often neglected during the long foreclosure process. Included in the bill is a plan to expedite the foreclosure process for properties that are confirmed to be vacant.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says, "Right now, the banks know they're going to take over the property, there's no one fighting the foreclosure but we still have this huge time lag that results in the phenomenon of abandoned zombie properties."

Our reports found that many local governments' hands are tied when it comes to dealing with zombie properties in their areas.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S3769912.shtml?cat=565

Well put Ed. In particular: " When a local yahoo somewhere (not saying it happens in Batavia, or Gen. County, but it does happen) pulls down a quarter-million-dollar salary, and gets a 5-figure BONUS (for doing what they're hired to do), something stinks in Denmark."
Yep, happens right here, it stinks in Genesee County and it aint from a dairy farm (that stuff is useful). I'm speaking of our Economic Development Corporation. Seeing as how they are supposedly raking in millions of dollars that are supposed to be benefiting all Genesee County residents; what about them helping out with this problem? Wouldn't having an affordable home ownership program for lower income working folks help make this an attractive place to locate a company? They are already in the finance business, sort of, and the real estate business. They can guarantee 40 or 50 grand mortgages, don't have to actually lend the money, just back the borrowers. They can provide low interest home improvement loans. This problem doesn't get solved until somebody starts thinking big enough and every stakeholder grabs a handle and lifts. I thought the GCEDC and its associated entities were the big thinkers and bold actors, well, here ya go. Show your stuff and do something meaningful. All tax breaks do is throw an extra burden onto already over-burden homeowners. I don't hear any talk of lowering the cost of government to make these things viable, so that usually means everyone else's tax goes up. Simple math (pre-common core)

OK, lets say we put a program in place and theirs a house for 40k, no bank is going to finance 40k and anyone with 40k just lying around isn't going to buy a house worth 40k to live in. So who has 10k for closing costs to buy a 40k house (if they can find financing). I'm not saying a program wont work but it will just work for a lot fewer people. If its not alil different than what there proposing.

"no bank is going to finance 40k"

Simply not true.

show me a bank that will mortgage 40k and i mean a 20-30yr mortgage, not personal loan or business loan.

I think we need a realtor to get in on this conversation or some one from pathstone they shere could shed some light on reality. and they might be able to help!!!!

"show me a bank that will mortgage 40k and i mean a 20-30yr mortgage, not personal loan or business loan."

Any bank would, even for someone with no credit or bad credit.

"I think we need a realtor"

Or a mortgage officer of any bank would do.