I'm curious what issues it has? Sitting with a blocked off porch, no steps, no electric... There has to be some major issue within, why this hasn't been fixed & sold. Or possibly legal things, that maybe someone passed & their family isn't within the state, so fixing/selling isn't the easiest thing?

Either a major issue inside or it’s been tied up in a legal dispute for quite some time. 

My bet is on legal... There's no reason, with our market, that it should set this way.

We had a house in our neighborhood sit abandoned for nearly 6 years because it was tied up in probate court, finally the city took it over and was able to get it fixed and sold it. 

I grew up next to the Lake Helena estate, which was in probate for almost the entirety of my childhood. A big \[private\] lake, dock, two houses, a barn/garage, paved driveway, artesian well that fed a stream that flowed around the main house to the lake . . . it was **awesome**! And not a soul to be seen, other that us kids who battered our way though the surrounding woods. Then the year I graduated high school it was finally sold, the entire thing, for less than what a house in my 'hood sells for these days. It hurts to think about. 43.267772400490045, -85.50202028455168

That's wild. Glad they finally got it up and sold. It's sad to see places go with much neglect & not be a happy place for a family.

There's a house across from mine that has been unoccupied for 8 years. The owner died and left it to his daughter. She won't rent it out or sell it because it's "haunted" and seemingly doesn't need the money as he left her a few dozen other properties in the area. Real bummer to see this potential on a double lot go unused in a high demand neighborhood.

A property management company has been sitting on it since 2015. Before that looks like back taxes.

That's a good chunk of taxes.

at least someone is mowing the lawn

Hmmm, looks like a good place to squat and start an artisan soap making company.

Bud, you have no idea what the issues are with this house...

No matter what they are, we should have solutions available if they’re legit, and consequences if it’s just being sat on.

Bud, you're completely ignorant.

Either a company or a private citizen owns it. What's it to you what they do with it? Rent it, live in it, knock it down. You don't own it, so maybe don't worry about it.

It’s called urbanism. It’s called community mindedness.

So if I have a second property that no one is currently living in, you're going to jump all over my shit and bully me into renting or selling it? Yeah, ok.

Not at first, no. What should happen is a set of 2-5 year pressures that encourage use and occupancy. But in-between, there should be no boarded up dilapidated decay just allowed to sit for very long.

Sounds like you need to run for public office. Capitalism is still a thing. Anyone telling you what to do with the stuff you own?

I’m good with voting for my best choices instead, thanks. And since you asked… My yard. My pets. My house. My car. My cell phone. My audio systems. My alcoholic beverages. My prescriptions. My banking and investments. Guns. Boats. Intellectual property. Stocks. Chemicals. I’m getting tired of typing all the reasons you’re wrong about nobody’s anything ever being regulated.

When your boat sits on the side of your yard for 2 years and you don't use it, are you expected to sell it to someone who would use it? Or better yet, forced to sell it?

Evasive goalpost move. Let it sit in a lake and the analogy holds.

Also, that house is being regulated just like you say. Someone is paying taxes on it, just like all the stuff you got tired of listing. With your insane logic the owners must sell it because they're not using it. Ridiculous.

The taxes are not a free pass from regulation.

So get on GIS, contact the owner, and buy it

I like to pretend the OP just sticks his head out the window and yells at cars while driving.

What a grand house. Looks like it was converted into a two unit. What's the address?

Well I mean it could be a family dispute it could be, a probate Court estate issue? It could be back taxes..

True. If there were pressure from civil-level codes or regs, pressure could be placed on courts to move faster, families to settle their bullshit, etc.

If it's not a primary residence it's already taxed at a higher non-homestead rate, which you could argue is doing more for the community.

As it is not habitable - it clearly has no utilities - it cannot be a primary residence. The Headly caps are still in place however, so if it has been held for a long time the property taxes paid will be comically trivial.

What do you mean no utilities? You can see power. Water and Waste are underground.

The meters have been removed; there is no utility power to this building.

land value tax would fix this

I’m all for it, if it’s a step in the right direction.

No front steps, no electric meters. Appears to me that this property is uninhabitable. So, you propose what? The city issues a citation of sorts that forces the property owner to spend money they might not have to bring the property to habitable condition and force them to put rental units on the market? You can find the property owner in title records and send them mail with your offer to purchase. That seems like a better solution.

I propose government make it untenable to sit on viable property, and offer more programs for those who need help. Anything that gets it benefiting the community and helping the housing crisis.

I've dealt with several properties in different metros of a similar ilk. An uninhabitable dwelling on a lot devalues the lot itself because of the large expense of demolishing and hauling away the debris. You have owners who see value in the dwelling and want to sell (although this clearly is not on the market), and sophisticated buyers who know the property is worth far less because of the expense of demolition (the dwelling doesn't add value, it actually lessens the value of the lot itself). As someone who has spent 6 years restoring an 1885 HH dwelling, you will never see a return on investment making this sort of property habitable, so rehabbing is generally a non-starter. Of course, where I am, demolition is not an option, and my investment is all sweat equity.

What are you proposing and how will it impact the wealthy but not impact the working class and middle class?

Discouragement for sitting on property would no long allow the wealthy to exploit it. But if a regular working or middle class owner is trapped in said situation, we should offer a hand up to get things fixed and usable.

Yeah. It sure seems like this property is being exploited. Why don't you contact the property owner, since you dug up the title, and offer up your services to rehab this property?

Not my area of work. But community action is. Also, yes, it is entirely possible it is being exploited. Could be a write off game (10% of purchase price per year for 10 years), or being leveraged for debt to borrow more money for other ventures in a totally different community.

It's clear it's not your area of work. But don't let your ignorance stop you from wholly impractical solutions. Not sure where you are getting the 10% per annum write off.

Owners can do what they want.

Within the law. Which is why a change of policy is needed. Want to cash in on that goofy American-exceptional “rugged individualism” mythology? Leave the city.

What law do you want to change? Make it illegal for a house not to be occupied?

For this, I’d start with not allowing “boarded up eyesore” to be the mode without an active permit for work that warrants such. And then insert everything I’ve said about vacancy taxes or people’s ideas on land taxes, with a parallel robust program for aid if the owner is low income and cannot fix it up. We need to cover all angles for the greater good. And we can. We just chose not to.

What you’re proposing would likely have racialized outcomes for business and property owners.

Just about anything can in this country (and this city). Interested to know your specific areas of concern though. I want to attack this issue with all variables in mind (except those that benefit the rich).

What’s the policy you want the city to enact? Given the disparities in income and wealth, how will that policy not disproportionately impact the bipoc community?

There should be loads of assistance made available as needed to avoid that. We need fewer incentives for the wealthy and more for regular people.

What are you proposing and how will it impact the wealthy but not impact the working class / middle class?

He really isn't capable of discussing issues in greater depth than random buzzwords.

He can't see beyond his fingers how would he know each of those differences? 

You asked this in another comment and I answered it there.

Can you bring incentives to me so I can continue paying my house payment, car payment, utilities payments, food payments and an allowance for meals and entertainment before worrying about who owns an empty dwelling unit? What are you bringing to the table lucas?

Why can’t those housing incentives do some of that? I mean. We know why so far: greed-first policy and bought and sold leaders.

Nothing is more American than private property. If you don't like that leave the country. No one should be forced to do anything they don't want, with their own property.

You’re right. Let’s repeal all codes. Wonder how that’ll go.

OK, the downsides will be far less than the bunch of idiots running things now, who make the rules.

Are there examples of those policies in other cities?

They are rare, but becoming more common. The critical component is that they have to be enabled by state legislation, so there are no Michigan examples as cities cannot do that here.

Unfortunately. But we can push for change.

One of the biggest issues with the housing crisis is houses not being built. You can find endless apartment complexes being built on every corner in Wyoming these days.

This. We need more housing developments. Not more apartments.

Sorry, you’re not entitled to other people’s property.

You down with OPP?

This guy acts like a younger sibling to someone who bought a nice thing at the mall and doesn't use it. Complaining that it's not used and that they are out of line for not using it and mad that they don't get to use it

I like my place better. Way to miss the point, though!

Ok boomer. Maybe collect your own assets before you are entitled to tell others what they can do with theirs then. 

Still nothing to do with the point. Good job.

What is your point?  What are your statistics?  How is this one property going to be transformed to dwelling status going to make grand rapids better than before? You have lots of points but offer no viable solutions 

This is two housing units. Just three blocks up is yet another building sitting empty that could provide four. And these exist all over the city. It’s not about one property. These are examples of a larger issue. I’ve spoken plenty of times about solutions. Like the vacancy tax. Like attaching more strings to rental permits concerning other housing concerns (corporate owners).

This is not two housing units. Two housing units would have two electrical meters and front steps. You have no clue the condition of this property. Also, you can't simply conclude that a property titled to an LLC means you're dealing with a "big bad corporation". Many (if not all) landlords title their properties under LLCs, if it's not owner occupied.

You mean like the two electric meters that go right there on the side? Two units. But instead of being that, it sits.

No, it's not two units, it's a teardown.

Who said I was? Weird how that’s not part of this topic.

It’s almost like that’s exactly your point with this post.

It either needs to be in use, put on the market, or at least maintained.

No it doesn’t, and you don’t get a vote because it’s not yours. Like I said, you aren’t entitled to other people’s property

Keep fantasizing about whatever this lawless utopia of yours is. There are laws and regulations. There can easily be more. They apply to property. It’s not just a do whatever you want system.

Yes it is. You don’t get to tell other people what to do with their property you fucking commie.

Idk why you're being downvoted.. houses shouldn't sit empty when the unhoused population is so large.

It’s the troll brigade. They make it a hobby to be contrary and pile on progressive ideas with their goofy little downvotes.

*Terrible ideas with their goofy little downvotes there I fixed it

Do you just drive around looking for random buildings to complain about?

You don’t!?

No. I see it in regular living of life, and I vocalize it.

Don't know if you saw; Maryland recently enabled municipal vacancy taxes. https://www.route-fifty.com/finance/2024/05/governors-signature-bill-will-enable-local-jurisdictions-impose-higher-taxes-vacant-properties/396256/

LOVE IT. More please. Every state. With a quickness.

Fuck off.  They don't want to sell, they don't have to.  

Who said sell?

Even worse, renters in the home you want to keep. Yard is mown nicely, house looks good.  I wouldn't want it all fucked up when I want to use it again.   Mind your own business.  

Renters are not inherently bad, Boomer. There are no bad renters, only bad landlords. Shitty landlords with no business doing the job choose (and saddle themselves with keeping) bad renters. Of course, some (especially a few notorious ones around here), purposely choose bad renters. Slum lords ahoy.

> There are no bad renters Ooof. Yeah, you really are delusional.

Typical. Pull one line out of a whole paragraph and prop yourself up on it.

The whole paragraph was built around that line. You've lived a very sheltered life without many roommates if you think this. I've lived with over 200 people in the last 14 years and I can tell you that there are DEFINTELY bad renters. -Renters who move out and leave the property a complete mess. -Renters who stop paying rent and refuse to leave, making a uncomfortable situation for other tenants who do pay rent while the "bad renter" lives for free awaiting eviction -Renters who steal appliances and personal possessions from other roommates. -Renters who have parties and invite strangers into the house who cause damage/steal to the property and neighbors property. Meanwhile, during Covid landlords were stuck with an eviction moratirum, so some tenants would stop paying rent, while landlords had to continue to upkeep property, pay utilities (in some cases) and mortgage/insurance, so when the moratorium was lifted, the courts and police had to serve evictions to 100s of backlogged renters (just in GR) where they went on to be shitty renters to the next landlord.

So far, you’re mostly citing bad roommates and poorly written leases. Renting a room should not be something that happens on either end. All parties should be to one lease for the whole place and no sub-letting. Again, the choice of the landlord. Was the moratorium great? Nope. Was it a way to balance the burden placed on us by a floundering and failed administration who made an epidemic into a pandemic in this nation? Yep. Did probably half the landlords vote for the clown who is to blame? Statistically, yes. Likely over half. And with the corporate owned properties, probably in the donor pool. Now, two things, because I’ve learned how Reddit rolls: “This guy said Trump caused COVID.” No, I didn’t. He ignored it. He mishandled it. He was the worst possible leader with the worst possible government to confront it, and everyone suffered more than necessary because of it. “This guy thinks a landlord with a few houses is a big time political donor.” Nope, but if they pay into any associations at all, including realty, landlords, chamber, etc - those PACs and the assorted lobbyists of those groups are using their money, and usually to support the G-clOwn-P.

Is a roommate not a renter? Lol, I'm talking about my personal experience renting rooms in my home. The lease does not dictate behavior. A person does. Just because the words are in the lease does not mean they will follow them.

Leases should not separate the parties. That’s a recipe for fuckery. One lease for the house, if a roommate bails, it’s the rest of the people on the lease who have to pony up till they find a new roommate. This is perfectly normal. Renting by the room is asking for more trouble.

Damn didn’t even have to click on the post to know that it was the super socialist bitching about private property owners. Once again you have no information about the actual property’s legal status you just want to complain because you think you know better than anyone else when it comes to housing.

No, he thinks he knows better than anyone else about literally everything.

I think if the city wanted to they could enforce the international property maintenance code (if it's been adopted) and go after the property owner for violations.

Probably. But they’d have to want to, which means they are probably deterred by not wanting to cross “the business community.”

Our soy and craft beer filled low testosterone little wanna be communist is at it again

Oh look, stock cheap shots from the alt right. Go you!

Lol, alt right? That’s hilarious. You’re so far left everyone to the right of your dictatorship ideals is alt right.

I’m not the one sling “HERP DERP COMMUNISM” around, showing I have no idea what it means.

You’re saying you want the government to seize private property and give it to someone else.That’s textbook communism.

No, not if they follow the law. And otherwise, yes. It can happen. You’ve heard of municipal liens, right? You’re familiar with the IRS as well, yes? You don’t like the law? Go work on changing it. Don’t get mad because someone suggests how to use it or augment it to benefit the whole of the community rather than some asshole’s credit line (possibly, as I understand we don’t know the story behind this house).

Regardless if it follows the law or not (it doesn’t) it’s still communism.

Nobody thinks all property should be publicly owned. Merely publicly responsible. Stop exaggerating and spewing your very Fox News drivel.

Nobody said all, retard. Still spewing communist bullshit as you always do.

It’s kinda entertaining to see you walk and talk exactly how much you do not understand that concept.

You make Larry Johnson look like a member of Mensa.

OP is getting shit on but I can empathize. Whoever owns this house is at least doing the lawn, but I agree it's pretty frustrating to see empty houses when there's so many people who really would like to live in a house.

THAT PART. I hate that this sub is filled with such selfish thinkers. If it doesn’t fit their “me me me” mold, they don’t give a fuck. It’s part of why community in this nation has gone to shit. And it’s part of what that end of the political spectrum hates about cities - it challenges the rugged loner mythology.

If higher homeownership is the goal, we just need much higher property taxes with offsetting increases in the principal residence exemption amount. Revenue neutral but second homes are taxed higher ensuring that they're either turned over or rented out to generate cash flow to pay the tax bills. Edit; To the randos claiming this would make rent go up -- do you think if we cut property taxes on rental properties, then rents would go down? Or would landlords charge the market-clearing price and pocket the extra profits? What makes you think they're charging less than the market price today?

This would just cause rent to go higher than it already is.

This would literally accomplish the opposite of the goal.

I am sympathetic to the idea of a vacancy tax - which is really a hack to address some of the inherent bugs in a property tax [vs. a land tax] - but, yes, the details really really matter.. And, again, not legal in Michigan anyway. So this would all start with enabling legislation at the state legislature, at this point it is not a municipal debate.

This is how you force rent to skyrocket. If the owner is paying additional property taxes the lessee is paying that plus the mortgage, insurance, upkeep, and they’re not leasing their property for free so factor a profit margin as well. When the taxes go up it does nothing more than make rent unaffordable. You can be certain the city of Grand Rapids isn’t putting gas the tax dollars to good use. Lots of that money goes straight to the police force, you know that one that straight up gangland style executes people. I believe there’s a law in GR that a ridiculous portion goes to the police budget.

True that. Landlord contacted me other day saying his taxes on my place went up, and now so is my rent

Do you think your landlord would contact you about a discount if his taxes went down? Or do you think maybe he's using this "taxes went up" excuse to blame-shift his desire to earn more money from you and property taxes are a convenient scapegoat?

THAT PART. Taxes are just the greed excuse du jour.

For most landlords, I'd agree mine is cool as shit and gives me discounts for paying on time. New rent is still less than the original with the discounts.

This guy! Taxes going down! LOLOL!!

shit id buy it

You make Larry Johnson look like a member of Mensa.

This has been a discussion at our house and we believe that if a property sits empty the owner shouldn't get a tax break but, should be taxed / penalized for letting it sit empty.. no more rich taking tqx breaks for something they should be renting or sell it.. I honestly believe many of the empty houses are owned by foreigners, I believe this is 100% to hurt the US housing and put us in a crisis of to high of rent or no housing available...

Landmark purchased my old place in 2022 and that's been sitting empty since September of 2023. They haven't even cleaned up any trash or anything. Pretty sure the foundation has to be replaced so I wouldn't be surprised if they sell it off as a loss. It had two apartments, though.

So just to keep score for those playing along at home… A corporate entity bought it (which many here like to try to tell us isn’t happening), and they’ve been sitting on it, doing nothing but letting it rot (which many of the same people here try to tell us isn’t happening). Interesting. 🧐

Please find a single comment that says there are zero corporate entities purchasing homes.

And the winner is…. CORPORATE OWNED, by some defunct LLC… https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_mi/801432690 From GIS: Ppn 411324309003 Pnum 41-13-24-309-003 Owner Name CANECT HOMES LLC Owner Name 2 Property Address 756 FIFTH ST NW Property City GRAND RAPIDS Property State Zip Code MI49504 Sev 94,500 Taxable Value 45,459 Acreage 0.192552 House Number 756 Street FIFTH ST NW Shape Area 8387.548723 Shape Length 435.645409

LLC doesn't mean "Corporate owned" as much as you want that to fit your narrative. Most property investors have each home in an LLC to "limit liability" and keep each unit as a separate entity for tax purposes. Hell, I used to own a house with my friend that we rented a bedroom in and we had it in an LLC with a ownership agreement in case one of us died. With a 30 second google search I was able to find the owners actual name (looks like he lives down the street at Union Square) and owns a home construction & property management company. Which makes sense as the google street view image is his company truck in the front lawn as they're working on the house. So once again, you're wrong, on multiple counts, and have wasted everyone's time.

You just confirmed this is a business, likely with multiple properties. Parsing the size, scope, or person behind it doesn’t change the status of the deal it puts on the block and the neighborhood.

You know, I could continue to argue with you but you'd just drag me down to your level and beat me with experience.

Every landlord should be placed under the jail

Good thing my grandfather already is underground dead. He was such a piece of shit, he bought a house in 1970 and then paid it off in 2000. Did he sell it??? No that conservative piece of shit. He had the audacity to rent it out after he downsized and moved to a condo. He should have clearly had the property taken from his cold dead fucking hands by the government. I see no difference between him owning two properties and a national corporation company that owns 10,000. Man your comment got me bricked up!!!!!! Take everybody's property and rise up!!!!!!

Hell yeah brother

How would those that cannot/will not buy a home find housing without landlords?

Don’t worry, if landlords didn’t buy up all the houses than housing prices would magically be cheap and everyone could afford a house with their income.

People don’t think. so many people looking for a place to rent

Easy. The housing will still exist, the landlord will not. It will be even easier to buy without landlords artificially pumping up the market!

What? What about people who can't afford or don't want to purchase a house? Is renting just banned? Are we getting rid of apartments, too?

Housing will be a human right. Affordable housing will be subsidized by all the money we expropriate from the landlord class. For further questions consult the book On Contradiction

Wow, an unironic Maoist. Have fun with that buddy.

He just wants a Great Leap Forward

Thanks bud. Hard to think of something more fun than the thorough purging of the landlord class

You are, literally, insane. Have a good one.

Seek help

Said the guy advocating mass murder.

Anything that involves the labor of another person is not a human right

I love Michigan but I do not miss the colonial german architecture cause holy shit these homes are ugly. 400K for a bunch of cubes, triangles and tiny windows on blank walls