Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 11, 1994 TAG: 9412140045
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: G-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN S. VOIT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Indeed, the primary problem is, as summarized by Edlich, "the number of units that have been allowed to deteriorate." While I'll not take time or space to repeat the problems or the obvious benefits in solving those problems, I'd like to offer some food for thought concerning the method by which we as a community approach the problem.
hO e typical method of collective (government) intervention employed in our society is to transfer decisions from the incentive-oriented private market to the command-and-control techniques of government bureaucracy. It may be that modifying the incentives of the private market could be a relevant, efficient and acceptable alternative.
For some reason our society, which has historically applauded the advantages of Adam Smith's invisible hand in private decision-making, seems reluctant to employ those same techniques in collective intervention. And incentives are far more likely to achieve effective and efficient results than are centralized regulations.
In the case of blighted housing units, it would seem one possible way to create an incentive (not mandate) for owners to improve their units would be to increase - rather than decrease - the property tax paid on those units. If those owners then wanted to reduce that tax (which surely they would), then the incentive would be there for them to do so. And quickly. It's almost certain they would act more quickly under these circumstances than they would if they were allowed to hire lawyers and use delaying tactics to avoid compliance.
It would also surely be much less expensive for taxpayers. Rather than employing new lawyers and inspectors, it would seem to make sense to employ the commissioner of revenue's office in this endeavor. Our current commissioner has certainly shown no reluctance in her zeal to assess taxes (which is, after all, her job), and unleashing her upon those refusing to maintain their property seems as "just" as unleashing her upon those choosing to improve or add on to existing property.
It also makes sense economically. Those members of our community refusing to maintain their property are, in effect, imposing a cost on the rest of the community. And this would serve as one method of transposing these costs back to those property owners rather than allowing them to continue to impose these costs on the rest of us. The traditional method of enforcement, however, tends to disperse the costs to the rest of us and allows owners of blighted units to continue to allow their property to deteriorate
In fact, we may even take this approach one step further, and freeze property taxes for one, two or five years after a homeowner has improved his or her property. Just as an increased tax on blighted property is an incentive to improve property, an increased tax on improved property is a disincentive for improvement.
While this approach may entail a new way of thinking or modifications in state laws, it would seem to be a potent addition to the arsenal in the fight against blight.
John S. Voit of Roanoke was a Republican candidate for City Council this spring.
by CNB