Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sebs posted this in the US Politics Thread, and it was quickly consumed with little comment. however, i think it is very interssting and want to repost it here for further discussion.

Sebster


Here’s an interesting piece on the recovery of a small Mississippi town.
https://www.fastcoexist.com/3068170/how-a-rural-mississippi-town-created-a-new-local-economy-to-rebuild-its-main-street

What’s interesting is the new businesses that have replaced the old. A machine shop became a brewery, a drugstore became an art gallery, a service station became a restaurant. These are new businesses from the new economy, replacing businesses from the old economy.

Many of these businesses were viable because building space was so cheap, as little as $10 a square foot for stuff needing a lot of maintenance. This allowed businesses to come for very little up front cash, which meant they had more economic freedom, they weren’t being pushed to make that next mortgage payment. Its meant a business doesn’t have to do that great, and it can still survive and provide a reasonable standard of living for its owner. ‘You won't see a Main Street business owner with the latest iPhone, or a fancy car, and they don't go on expensive vacations. "But they're buying their kids clothes for school,"’

And all these small businesses have owners who’ve stayed in the town, spent their earnings in town. The article doesn’t say it, but one thing I’ve often thought about the fuss over international trade is how little rarely people take the arguments against trade and apply it more locally. If it is bad when a local company is owned by a Chinese company because all the profits go to Shanghai, is it any different when it is owned by a US company and all the profits go to New York?

Now, I live and work in a "small-town" in a rural community. I own two small businesses in the downtown, so this is a topic close to my heart. I would love to discuss rural revitalization further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One major challenge I have encountered in my own local community is dealing with Landlords who own buildings, but have no real interest in developing them, renting them out, or selling them. They are perfectly content with letting them sit idle with a token "For Rent" sign on them.

Even when you do manage to get in touch witht he Landlord, they are asking for ridiculous rent prices considering the community.

Has anyone else faced this type of situation, and what steps did your community take to resolve/deal with it?

This is not a criticism but a question-what kind of landlords are these that don't care to rent something out?

Exactly my point! I do not understand the incentive? Many of them were not local to the community either.

I was hoping someone could shed some light on the situation.

I have one answer...they don't like "those" people.
Other then that don't know.

I always thought flamethrowers were the best for revitalization. Ok not most beneficial, but definitely most fun.

Back to reality again, I'd proffer part of the problem is that there is no substantial business in the region. Agriculture is not a major income generator like it was, and most local industries don't exist any more.

I read a book for a project about three months back about the role of Historic Preservation as a means of revitalizing inner city communities and economies.

The guy meant well but damn was he high on his own cool-aid XD Some of his basic ideas totally worked from a historical perspective, but economically they made no sense as to how they were going to help the people who lived in the area pursue new businesses without gentrifying the area. The two major historic district revitalization programs I'm aware of (The U-Street Corridor in Washington D.C. and the Hills district in Pittsburg) had major gentrification and much of the historic community was forced out of the area by price increases.

The guy who wrote the book himself worked in St. Louis in the 90s where there seemed to be a lack of large realtors or consolidated land ownership so maybe he encountered a perfect storm scenario, but he seemed a little to high on himself for me to take him at his word.

They could be getting subsidies somehow, or are holding on to the property to speculate on land values.

I am of the opinion that serviceable buildings left abandoned for no good reason should be allowed to be bought out by the local authorities or some sort of housing association, co-operative, etc. Likewise, it should be required that any empty area of land should be landscaped (even if that's just turfed and let to grow naturally) if it's going to be empty for more than a certain period of time.

There's obviously issues of ownership and access rights there, but there should be incentives or requirements to prefer active use over "hoarding". Removal of tax exemptions for second homes is an example.

 LordofHats wrote:
I read a book for a project about three months back about the role of Historic Preservation as a means of revitalizing inner city communities and economies.

The guy meant well but damn was he high on his own cool-aid XD Some of his basic ideas totally worked from a historical perspective, but economically they made no sense as to how they were going to help the people who lived in the area pursue new businesses without gentrifying the area. The two major historic district revitalization programs I'm aware of (The U-Street Corridor in Washington D.C. and the Hills district in Pittsburg) had major gentrification and much of the historic community was forced out of the area by price increases.

The guy who wrote the book himself worked in St. Louis in the 90s where there seemed to be a lack of large realtors or consolidated land ownership so maybe he encountered a perfect storm scenario, but he seemed a little to high on himself for me to take him at his word.

What was that St. Louis author's book?

There's some varying success (and weird stallings) in downtown's Bottling District, Central West End and further out Delmar Loop.

Some Buildings near the riverfront and around Ball Park Village are turning into nice lofts...

I visited some friends a while back in his http://majesticstovelofts.com/gallery/]loft off of Washinton ave that was freak'n neato. If I didn't have kids (or spawn left the house)... I may move into one of these...

Seaking of gentrifications... how do mitigate that, while at the same to revitalize? Seems like there isn't an easy answer...

 LordofHats wrote:
I read a book for a project about three months back about the role of Historic Preservation as a means of revitalizing inner city communities and economies.

I am glad you have mentioned this. Our local downtown has been designated historical and all new buildings need to meet certain requiremetns and renovatiosn too. There is a grant you can apply for fromt eh City/County to help off-set these costs. However, in my expereince thsi has only made things harder and land lords less likely to do anythign since they do not want to go through all the paperwork/costs to actually do anything.

In the meantime, a historic theatre got so full of mold the only thing left to do with it was demo it after the city had to confiscate it from the old owner who had been trying to sell it for a ridicualous sum of money. Now it is just an empty lot int he middle of downtown.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
They could be getting subsidies somehow, or are holding on to the property to speculate on land values.

I am of the opinion that serviceable buildings left abandoned for no good reason should be allowed to be bought out by the local authorities or some sort of housing association, co-operative, etc.

That's... very much a touchy subject.

We *do* have Eminent Domain laws. Meaning, if there are government interests to the property they can purchase that land at going rate, and the landowner can't refuse (ie, for roads, powerlines, etc...). Recently, it's touchy since the Kelo decision... in that, private entities can now petition the government to use Eminent Domain to force the reluctant owners to sell... as long as this private entity can convince the state that it'll generate increase of tax revenue for that state.

Likewise, it should be required that any empty area of land should be landscaped (even if that's just turfed and let to grow naturally) if it's going to be empty for more than a certain period of time.

Most cities requires that anyways. You can be written up if the grass is too tall, or if the fence is not painted (...etc.).

@Whembly; Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities. By Andrew Hurley. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010. Urban Life, Landscape, and Policy. Series Editor Zane Miller, David Stradling, and Larry Bennett. Maps. Notes. Index. pp. 231. <- This book won the National Council on Public History Book Award in 2012.

I am glad you have mentioned this. Our local downtown has been designated historical and all new buildings need to meet certain requiremetns and renovatiosn too. There is a grant you can apply for fromt eh City/County to help off-set these costs. However, in my expereince thsi has only made things harder and land lords less likely to do anythign since they do not want to go through all the paperwork/costs to actually do anything.

In the meantime, a historic theatre got so full of mold the only thing left to do with it was demo it after the city had to confiscate it from the old owner who had been trying to sell it for a ridicualous sum of money. Now it is just an empty lot int he middle of downtown.

Yeah. I find that actually maintaining a "historic district" is very expensive, and actually produces a series of very big turn offs for business owners. I'm all for historic preservation of course, but preserving an entire district I think is hard to justify. There isn't a Harlem or a Hills district in every city, and gentrification/price problems are going to go hand in hand with these projects.

 LordofHats wrote:
@Whembly; Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities. By Andrew Hurley. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010. Urban Life, Landscape, and Policy. Series Editor Zane Miller, David Stradling, and Larry Bennett. Maps. Notes. Index. pp. 231. <- This book won the National Council on Public History Book Award in 2012.

Thanks, I'm going to check it out.

 Easy E wrote:
Exactly my point! I do not understand the incentive? Many of them were not local to the community either.

I was hoping someone could shed some light on the situation.

You can claim a tax deduction for rental properties even when they're vacant. You can't deduct rental income if it's vacant but you can deduct the costs of maintenance and upkeep along with the depreciation of the property. That's true for your Federal income tax filings and you can usually get state income tax deductions too but those vary by state.

If it's an out of town landlord it may be somebody who bought the building for a low price and would rather just take the tax breaks from owning it rather than invest money and time into getting it rented.

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch09.html#en_US_2016_publink1000171738

Depreciation. You can begin to depreciate rental property when it is ready and available for rent. See Placed in Service under When Does Depreciation Begin and End in chapter 2 of Pub. 527.

Vacant rental property. If you hold property for rental purposes, you may be able to deduct your ordinary and necessary expenses (including depreciation) for managing, conserving, or maintaining the property while the property is vacant. However, you cannot deduct any loss of rental income for the period the property is vacant.

Vacant while listed for sale. If you sell property you held for rental purposes, you can deduct the ordinary and necessary expenses for managing, conserving, or maintaining the property until it is sold. If the property is not held out and available for rent while listed for sale, the expenses are not deductible rental expenses.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
@Whembly; Beyond Preservation: Using Public History to Revitalize Inner Cities. By Andrew Hurley. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2010. Urban Life, Landscape, and Policy. Series Editor Zane Miller, David Stradling, and Larry Bennett. Maps. Notes. Index. pp. 231. <- This book won the National Council on Public History Book Award in 2012.

I am glad you have mentioned this. Our local downtown has been designated historical and all new buildings need to meet certain requiremetns and renovatiosn too. There is a grant you can apply for fromt eh City/County to help off-set these costs. However, in my expereince thsi has only made things harder and land lords less likely to do anythign since they do not want to go through all the paperwork/costs to actually do anything.

In the meantime, a historic theatre got so full of mold the only thing left to do with it was demo it after the city had to confiscate it from the old owner who had been trying to sell it for a ridicualous sum of money. Now it is just an empty lot int he middle of downtown.

Yeah. I find that actually maintaining a "historic district" is very expensive, and actually produces a series of very big turn offs for business owners. I'm all for historic preservation of course, but preserving an entire district I think is hard to justify. There isn't a Harlem or a Hills district in every city, and gentrification/price problems are going to go hand in hand with these projects.

Gentrification occurs with every successful revitalization project, that's the whole point of the project. If you revitalize an area you increase it's value and desirability which is gentrifying it. You can't increase the value of a neighborhood/area and not make it more expensive to live there. Even if you already owned your residence outright in an area that gets revitalized you'd still see a rise in cost of living as the surrounding buildings become more valuable and the businesses that occupy them incur higher occupancy costs and therefore charge higher prices or carry more valuable goods.

 Frazzled wrote:
This is not a criticism but a question-what kind of landlords are these that don't care to rent something out?

A lot of people are quite emotional about money. One example is people being happier to get no rent by not renting out a space, than rent it for a 'less than its worth'. In this case 'less than its worth' is the number they think it is worth based on what they paid for it decades ago, or what rent it used to collect. It has nothing to do with what its actually worth (which would be the best rent you can get for the property).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I read a book for a project about three months back about the role of Historic Preservation as a means of revitalizing inner city communities and economies.

The guy meant well but damn was he high on his own cool-aid XD Some of his basic ideas totally worked from a historical perspective, but economically they made no sense as to how they were going to help the people who lived in the area pursue new businesses without gentrifying the area. The two major historic district revitalization programs I'm aware of (The U-Street Corridor in Washington D.C. and the Hills district in Pittsburg) had major gentrification and much of the historic community was forced out of the area by price increases.

I think there's probably a couple of different kinds of revitalisation. The kind in the examples you give, of taking areas in urban decline and making them in to attractive neighborhoods have problems with gentrification.

But the example in the original article I posted that Easy E linked here is something quite different, I think. It is less about putting in nice new shopping districts and renovating old homes to significantly increase their value. It is more, I think, about a new economic model where the low cost of housing and commercial space is seen as a draw card. Because with lower costs you can attract business models that don't need to make huge amounts of money just to stay above water. This could allow a greater range of small businesses, who's owners are much more likely to live in the area and put their earnings back in to the local economy.

I mean, I know that isn't a model for every town, in fact the model is reliant on population decreases so it can't be a model for every town, but it is certainly a model that can be made to work in some areas.

See that makes sense to me. A lot more than declaring a bunch of buildings a historical landmark by finding some convoluted way to argue for their significance and then get them all tied up in mountains of Red Tape.

Seriously. Here in the US and depending on the state being a registered historical landmark can be a complete pain. Here in Shippensburg Pennsylvania we have a historic pre-Revolutionary fort, Fort Morris. People have traditionally associated the fort with a specific party of town and there is a historic marker at that site. Turns out the fort isn't there! It's clear on the other side of town in some guys backyard. It's location was confirmed by the local university a few years ago when the trash pit was found and later pieces of the palisade at the same site. Except we can't get the marker moved!

We had this dilapidated building that was just old. No historical significance really, just old. No one could demolish it because histroy, but the city didnt want to pay to redo it. So it sat there.
Until, late one night some "Hooligans" Decided to demolish the entire thing with sledgehammers(It was so old, it could be demolished with minimal effort)
We still dont know who did it, but no one was complaining.

 whembly wrote:
Recently, it's touchy since the Kelo decision... in that, private entities can now petition the government to use Eminent Domain to force the reluctant owners to sell... as long as this private entity can convince the state that it'll generate increase of tax revenue for that state.

Kelo v. New London, AKA why "first against the wall when the revolution comes" needs to become truth instead of a slogan.

 LordofHats wrote:
See that makes sense to me. A lot more than declaring a bunch of buildings a historical landmark by finding some convoluted way to argue for their significance and then get them all tied up in mountains of Red Tape.

Oh yeah, we've got that problem here in spades. A lot of councils have really strong heritage rules, despite Perth being a very young city with very little heritage. "Mid century modern" is how they make houses built in the 1960s sounds like an important cultural legacy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We had this dilapidated building that was just old. No historical significance really, just old. No one could demolish it because histroy, but the city didnt want to pay to redo it. So it sat there.
Until, late one night some "Hooligans" Decided to demolish the entire thing with sledgehammers(It was so old, it could be demolished with minimal effort)
We still dont know who did it, but no one was complaining.

I was working at a local council with a really strict heritage plan. It is actually about as close as Perth gets to heritage housing so there was some argument for heritage laws but council took it miles too far. The angle of a roof had to be maintained at so many degrees or a renovation could be denied.

Anyhow, there was one guy who bought a house that he first wanted to demolish and was denied, then tried to renovate but spent about a year having plans rejected. Then late one Friday afternoon he rings us in council, talks to the planner and gets him to confirm the maximum penalty for breaking council's heritage by-laws. He was told it was $50,000. Monday morning we come in to work to find out this guy demolished the house over the weekend, and was on the phone first thing Monday morning ready to pay the fine.

Council passed a law increasing the max fine to a % of the value of the house and land within about a week

UK towns are getting run down due to high taxes.
Shops sit empty until a charity of some sort wants it, and they end up paying less tax than most other businesses. The council makes less than they would, but seem content with a bit more than having it sit empty.
So, we have smaller towns full of charity shops, and little else.

As you've said, historical reasons mean certain rules have to be followed when refurbishing a store, especially the front.
Even though Coventry got bombed a lot, loads of concrete re-builds are protected now, too. Old timbered buildings are hanging on, and get filled again with smaller businesses. 'Newer' buildings have trouble getting taken on, as they are the ones with more tax, and more chance of getting replaced/rebuilt.

Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
They could be getting subsidies somehow, or are holding on to the property to speculate on land values.

I am of the opinion that serviceable buildings left abandoned for no good reason should be allowed to be bought out by the local authorities or some sort of housing association, co-operative, etc. Likewise, it should be required that any empty area of land should be landscaped (even if that's just turfed and let to grow naturally) if it's going to be empty for more than a certain period of time.

There's obviously issues of ownership and access rights there, but there should be incentives or requirements to prefer active use over "hoarding". Removal of tax exemptions for second homes is an example.

I'd go further myself, but then I am a Dirty Socialist. If you own a building, and you've left it vacant for a period (5 years possibly too short. 10?), then ownership is given to the local authority.

Add in some exceptions (evidence of trying to develop it etc - you can set the bar fairly high) and suddenly owning empty properties becomes less attractive.

Or Tax it's increase in estimated value each year. Anything to stop what is in effect Legal Squatting. We've got a housing shortage, after all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:
UK towns are getting run down due to high taxes.
Shops sit empty until a charity of some sort wants it, and they end up paying less tax than most other businesses. The council makes less than they would, but seem content with a bit more than having it sit empty.
So, we have smaller towns full of charity shops, and little else.

As you've said, historical reasons mean certain rules have to be followed when refurbishing a store, especially the front.
Even though Coventry got bombed a lot, loads of concrete re-builds are protected now, too. Old timbered buildings are hanging on, and get filled again with smaller businesses. 'Newer' buildings have trouble getting taken on, as they are the ones with more tax, and more chance of getting replaced/rebuilt.

Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

Depends where you are I guess.

I'm lucky enough to live in one of the more affluent areas - Royal Tunbridge Wells.

That affluence has lead to a sort of café and boutique culture. Lots of historically smol shops ideal for just that sort of 'low stock, high price' affair.

Shopping Centre in the centre of town has relatively few empty places (BHS being the notable one, but that's a different story) and they're going to be expanding it too (Cinema in town! Finally!).

But yeah. I've been through towns in less affluent areas, and it's pretty grim. If businesses could get a deal on rents and rates, they could be tempted to set up. Provides local services and amenities, as well as jobs. First step in restoring a given area that.

Whilst land banking is certainly a thing. If you want to revitalize a community, wouldn't a secondary currency, be more effective.?
The increase in commerce, would make higher rents attainable, for small businesses. Not desirable but attainable, this would encourage reluctant landlords to rent out. Goggle "Bristol pound" or complimentary currencies.

 Skinnereal wrote:


Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

This as well. The center of retail focus has clearly shifted to the outskirts of town, creating a "ring" for lack of a better word. therefore, people who drive in from outlying communities never actually have to go intothe town tiself, and then new houses go up aroudn them, and then it starts again until you have ended up sprwaling outwards and there is no community left. All there is is a bunch of cul-de-sacs.

I have found this does not help the town solve many of its "core" problems in the long run. However, no one is willing to break the cycle and make the center of the town the place most attractive for growth instead of the outskirts.

 Easy E wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:


Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

This as well. The center of retail focus has clearly shifted to the outskirts of town, creating a "ring" for lack of a better word. therefore, people who drive in from outlying communities never actually have to go intothe town tiself, and then new houses go up aroudn them, and then it starts again until you have ended up sprwaling outwards and there is no community left. All there is is a bunch of cul-de-sacs.

I have found this does not help the town solve many of its "core" problems in the long run. However, no one is willing to break the cycle and make the center of the town the place most attractive for growth instead of the outskirts.

Breaking that cycle is likely going to involve breaking downtown or at least it's current form. Building on the outskirts is cheaper, there's more space available, you can design better traffic patterns and make more parking available, and the outskirts can pull people in from inside town and people moving into the new developments on the outskirts. If a city/town is growing then it's growing outward, more people are moving to the outskirts of town as the town spreads out. These new people are now further from downtown. Is it easy for those people to get downtown? Is there mass transit nearby? Is there ample parking downtown? What is downtown that is an attraction for them? New developments are trending towards the mixed use model with apartments/condos in the same development as retail so residents can easily walk to restaurants, stores, etc. It's easy to design and build new developments to be very convenient, it's hard to redevelop existing downtown areas where the ability to make big changes is expensive and limited. The kind of tenant that could lease a vacant space in an existing building downtown and really pull traffic to the area is extremely rare, there are very few tenants like that. Businesses that draw traffic know how many people they need to come through their doors and they will demand easy access to their location and ample parking for all the customers they need to bring in.

 LordofHats wrote:
See that makes sense to me. A lot more than declaring a bunch of buildings a historical landmark by finding some convoluted way to argue for their significance and then get them all tied up in mountains of Red Tape.

Seriously. Here in the US and depending on the state being a registered historical landmark can be a complete pain. Here in Shippensburg Pennsylvania we have a historic pre-Revolutionary fort, Fort Morris. People have traditionally associated the fort with a specific party of town and there is a historic marker at that site. Turns out the fort isn't there! It's clear on the other side of town in some guys backyard. It's location was confirmed by the local university a few years ago when the trash pit was found and later pieces of the palisade at the same site. Except we can't get the marker moved!

It may be getting even more into the weeds, but I have friends living in 2 different cities who are severely limited in what they can do to their houses because the neighborhood has been labeled a "historic neighborhood" or some such foolishness. One friend cannot trim the tree which may or may not be threatening the house (all the tree guys say it needs to be removed, cut down/back significantly while all the "history people" in charge of oversight say the tree must stay as part of the property). The other one is having a hell of a time with painting the exterior of the house. The house severely needs to be painted, but people on the board are insisting that they must use a certain kind of paint, which is, ironically, not available due to laws changing over the years.




As for those absentee landlords who keep holding on to vacant property are probably hoping that they will get someone who will rent at their ridiculous prices, but at the same time, their inflexibility is greatly aiding in the downward spiral of that property's value.

Another situation we have had locally withthe same landlord is that he gets a business to rent his space for a year, and then tries to jack up the rate to ridiculous levels and refuses to negotiate. Granted, the initial leasee may have been bad at negotiating intial terms, but what can they do whent he terms come up? The tenants leave and the space sits empty again.

This has happened to a Office Max, italian restaurant, and Verizon store that this same land lord has owned. Due to it, other businesses are now wary of even looking at these spaces or any space the land lord is affiliated with. Also not a local by-the-way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:


Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

This as well. The center of retail focus has clearly shifted to the outskirts of town, creating a "ring" for lack of a better word. therefore, people who drive in from outlying communities never actually have to go intothe town tiself, and then new houses go up aroudn them, and then it starts again until you have ended up sprwaling outwards and there is no community left. All there is is a bunch of cul-de-sacs.

I have found this does not help the town solve many of its "core" problems in the long run. However, no one is willing to break the cycle and make the center of the town the place most attractive for growth instead of the outskirts.

Breaking that cycle is likely going to involve breaking downtown or at least it's current form. Building on the outskirts is cheaper, there's more space available, you can design better traffic patterns and make more parking available, and the outskirts can pull people in from inside town and people moving into the new developments on the outskirts. If a city/town is growing then it's growing outward, more people are moving to the outskirts of town as the town spreads out. These new people are now further from downtown. Is it easy for those people to get downtown? Is there mass transit nearby? Is there ample parking downtown? What is downtown that is an attraction for them? New developments are trending towards the mixed use model with apartments/condos in the same development as retail so residents can easily walk to restaurants, stores, etc. It's easy to design and build new developments to be very convenient, it's hard to redevelop existing downtown areas where the ability to make big changes is expensive and limited. The kind of tenant that could lease a vacant space in an existing building downtown and really pull traffic to the area is extremely rare, there are very few tenants like that. Businesses that draw traffic know how many people they need to come through their doors and they will demand easy access to their location and ample parking for all the customers they need to bring in.

Yes, that all makes economic sense and I understand the reasoning. That is why no one yet has been willing to put in the effort or energy to break this cycle. It would take a lot of leadership and political will to bbreak the "conventional" wisdom like that.

I submit a counter-example for urban development called the theory of Constraints:

https://transportist.org/2009/05/28/how_constraints_drive_growth/

This seems to be what the town in Sebs article tried to do, but they did it by making the cost of that downtown space incredibly reasonable so you would be dumb not to build downtown instead of at the outskirts.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One friend cannot trim the tree which may or may not be threatening the house (all the tree guys say it needs to be removed, cut down/back significantly while all the "history people" in charge of oversight say the tree must stay as part of the property).

Can the council be made legally liable for any damage caused to the property?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One friend cannot trim the tree which may or may not be threatening the house (all the tree guys say it needs to be removed, cut down/back significantly while all the "history people" in charge of oversight say the tree must stay as part of the property).

Can the council be made legally liable for any damage caused to the property?

No.

Only thing homeowner can do is petition the court to allow him to remove it. Costing time and money in a court setting...

Cannot even prune the tree? Disallowing maintenance seems counter productive.

 Easy E wrote:
Another situation we have had locally withthe same landlord is that he gets a business to rent his space for a year, and then tries to jack up the rate to ridiculous levels and refuses to negotiate. Granted, the initial leasee may have been bad at negotiating intial terms, but what can they do whent he terms come up? The tenants leave and the space sits empty again.

This has happened to a Office Max, italian restaurant, and Verizon store that this same land lord has owned. Due to it, other businesses are now wary of even looking at these spaces or any space the land lord is affiliated with. Also not a local by-the-way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:


Business parks make this worse, with out-of-town stores taking the shoppers away from the streets. Councils don't seem to react to this, by reducing rents or whatever, and on it goes.

This as well. The center of retail focus has clearly shifted to the outskirts of town, creating a "ring" for lack of a better word. therefore, people who drive in from outlying communities never actually have to go intothe town tiself, and then new houses go up aroudn them, and then it starts again until you have ended up sprwaling outwards and there is no community left. All there is is a bunch of cul-de-sacs.

I have found this does not help the town solve many of its "core" problems in the long run. However, no one is willing to break the cycle and make the center of the town the place most attractive for growth instead of the outskirts.

Breaking that cycle is likely going to involve breaking downtown or at least it's current form. Building on the outskirts is cheaper, there's more space available, you can design better traffic patterns and make more parking available, and the outskirts can pull people in from inside town and people moving into the new developments on the outskirts. If a city/town is growing then it's growing outward, more people are moving to the outskirts of town as the town spreads out. These new people are now further from downtown. Is it easy for those people to get downtown? Is there mass transit nearby? Is there ample parking downtown? What is downtown that is an attraction for them? New developments are trending towards the mixed use model with apartments/condos in the same development as retail so residents can easily walk to restaurants, stores, etc. It's easy to design and build new developments to be very convenient, it's hard to redevelop existing downtown areas where the ability to make big changes is expensive and limited. The kind of tenant that could lease a vacant space in an existing building downtown and really pull traffic to the area is extremely rare, there are very few tenants like that. Businesses that draw traffic know how many people they need to come through their doors and they will demand easy access to their location and ample parking for all the customers they need to bring in.

Yes, that all makes economic sense and I understand the reasoning. That is why no one yet has been willing to put in the effort or energy to break this cycle. It would take a lot of leadership and political will to bbreak the "conventional" wisdom like that.

I submit a counter-example for urban development called the theory of Constraints:

https://transportist.org/2009/05/28/how_constraints_drive_growth/

This seems to be what the town in Sebs article tried to do, but they did it by making the cost of that downtown space incredibly reasonable so you would be dumb not to build downtown instead of at the outskirts.

The out of town landlord just seems like a bad business person. That's more likely than all 3 previous tenants signing leases with excessive escalator clauses. It definitely seems like the landlord doesn't have an accurate idea of what the correct value of the space is. Leased space is more valuable than unleased space as even a small rate of return on an investment is better than no return or a loss. Owners typically want multi year leases to reduce the time the space is vacant and there are usually an escalation of the rental rate on an annual basis because a successful business occupying the space should increase the value of the space and be able to afford reasonable rate increases. The whole point of investing in real estate is to get a return on your investment and the best way to ensure that is to get the highest and best use out of the property for as long a period of time as possible. The current owner is just hurting their own investment by driving out tenants by overcharging for the space. There really isn't a solution to that problem other than hoping that he owner either becomes more reasonable or sells the property to somebody else that is more reasonable.

The story about Water Valley MS is a good story but it would be difficult to replicate. Having a couple stop by your town, like it and have the means to buy up half a dozen buildings downtown, renovate them and lease them out at a low rate is the result of the confluence of a lot of factors. First the town had to become economically depressed enough for buildings to be valued as low as $10-12/sqft by comparison the asking price for retail buildings in Jackson MS (the state capital) is $98 and the average rent for retail space in the state is $12.61/sqft. http://www.loopnet.com/Jackson_Mississippi_Market-Trends
For the cost of leasing some retail space in a city in Mississippi you can buy the building outright in Water Valley. That's a hugely depressed market and it would be difficult to convince investors to invest in area that depressed for the benefit of getting a low rate of return. You have a small rural town of 3300 people wherein 20 people could afford to buy up 30 buildings downtown, renovate them and lease them or use them for businesses that could stay afloat because the rents were so low because the buildings were so cheap to buy. So normal market rates for retail space would have been too high for businesses to be successful in Water Valley. To recreate that you'd have to instill some kind of price controls on the downtown buildings but that would likely discourage people from wanting to invest in the buildings and force current businesses on existing rental agreements to compete against new businesses that were paying much lower rents and therefore able to undercut the prices of the older businesses. You'd probably need to just do eminent domain seizures like the Kelo case and have the town seize buildings that are vacant and lease them out at low rates based on the reasoning that the town makes more money from occupied buildings than vacant ones. Or find philanthropic rich people to buy up the buildings and lease them out on the cheap just to be nice.

My first thought was that they must not understand how the system worked..... but then I realized that maybe I was the one who did not understand!

 feeder wrote:
Cannot even prune the tree? Disallowing maintenance seems counter productive.

Agreed... It is weird, and the whole thing gets quickly bogged down in legal jargon. Like, he can use a hand trimmer to remove small twigs, but he cannot hire anyone to remove larger branches. I think so far as I've ever seen in that particular neighborhood, the only people able to successfully hire out tree trimming, is the local power company, but obviously they have money, power and usually people listen when the utilities folks speak up.