patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

What Can Be Done About Bed-Stuy's Vacant Buildings?

Bed-Stuy has the highest density of vacant buildings and lots, the result of the real estate crash and landlords who sit on a property waiting for the highest bidder.

 

The door to the Lefferts Hotel, at the corner of Lefferts Place and Classon Avenue, has been chained up for over a year, joining numerous other vacant buildings in Bed-Stuy that residents say are not only an eyesore, but are decreasing property values, according to a report in the Brooklyn Ink.

Accordng to the Ink, Bed-Stuy “has the highest density per square mile of vacant property buildings and lots” in the city, said Kendall Jackman, who is helping to put together a city-wide land-use study with her group, Picture The Homeless.

Some of these vacant buildings are foreclosed homes without buyers, but some are the result of greedy landlords who “warehouse,” or sit on the building until a buyer comes around with a good price.

“They don’t make any money just having it there,” real estate agent Rosetta Allen told the Ink. “They are hoping that the value goes up, but the problem is that when it goes up, there will not be any buyers” because people will would have found other places.”

Last month, Patch reported on the introduction of Neighborhood Stabilization Program 2, a nationwide program that helps first-time homeowners acquire vacant, foreclosed properties.

Families who are eligible may receive up to $80,000 in forgivable loans to first-time homeowners who agree to participate in a series of counseling workshops and live in the neighborhood for at least 15 years.

The aim of the program is to stabilize neighborhoods by keeping long-term residents, and help first-time homeowners get their footing.

According to the Ink’s report, Jackman also believes that these vacant properties can become housing for the homeless, eliminating the need for a dedicated shelter.

Related Topics: Homeless, Landlords, Real Estate, foreclosed homes, and vacant properties

Corey

6:19 pm on Thursday, January 12, 2012

The homes in that picture are in Clinton Hill.

Reply

pat

4:08 am on Friday, January 13, 2012

Fine the landlords if the property is in distress, or becoming a hazard to the neighborhood.

Reply

Glenn Krasner

9:08 am on Friday, January 13, 2012

This is at least better than 25 to 40 years ago, when the landlords walked away from the buildings in all five boroughs by not paying the property taxes, and the City of New York took over the properties over in lieu of the taxes. It took two generations for the City of New York to get these properties viable again, thankfully through people/tenant friendly programs such as NYCHPD's TIL, the HDFC program, and sales to non-profit housing programs. Unfortunately, near the end the city starting selling these properties to speculators and the highest bidders, but it took many years for the city to rid itself of these abandoned properties. The city is a better place for it, and neighborhoods such as Harlem and throughout Brooklyn are thriving because of what the city was able to eventually accomplish. Glenn in the Bronx

Reply

Kendall Jackman

12:57 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012

First Ms. Schuh, I am a woman just like you. In the future, when you write an article from another article, you need to check a few things before you go to print, such as the gender of the person you are quoting. Second, the city-wide land use study you refer to is based on a bill we wrote in 2006, based on a vacant property count conducted in Manhattan in partnership with Borough President Scott Stringer's office. The bill, "Annual Census of Vacant Buildings and Lots", is stuck in committee because the powers that be don't want you to know, their isn't a housing crisis. Why don't you contact me and interview me yourself and even attend our report release event. We're in the book. Third, Glen some of those buildings of 40 years ago are still standing and the shells are still strong. I know, we counted them.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Jamie Schuh

1:09 pm on Friday, January 13, 2012

Hi Kendall - first off, my apologies! I think there was a switched pronoun in the original Ink article that probably threw me off. Anyway, I've corrected our post. Please feel free to contact me at jamieschuh@gmail.com with any updates.

Leave a comment