If you believe that will occur shopiere I have waterfront property in several neighborhoods in beautiful New Orleans to sell you. The homes are well ventilated fixer uppers that you would consider a goldmine!

That's a pipe dream and a joke.

irrefutable

"we hope"

Yep "hope in one hand and crap in the other...and see which one fills up first.

Janesvillean, I support your irrefutable logic and common sense in your explanation of the benefit of city rehabilitation of these homes. I don't know if it was specifically mentioned, but another benefit is that these rehabbed, now nice homes will attract an owner who is an asset to the community, one who works or otherwise has a legal income, pays taxes and fees, stimulates the economy with purchases and has an interest in the community and pride of ownership of his her home.

This is an investment for the city that pays back for the very long term, easily recouping and exceeding the initial "loss". These types of citizens tend to attract like minded people as neighbors. It is a win-win, that is irrefutable.

wortnik, I'm not going to cook up a full spreadsheet here so you can understand basic math, but I will put it another way. A vacant lot will have the value of, at most, 10% or so of a developed one. Thus the question is, does the city put its money into razing a building, and getting $100/yr with a 50-year payoff, or into rehabbing a building, getting $1000/yr with a 20-year payoff?
.
Of course, this doesn't even count the misery that the neighborhood will go through if blighted structures are allowed to deteriorate until daylight comes through the roof and ooze bubbles up from the basement. One of those very-poorly-maintained structures is rented very cheaply by one of the city's worst slumlords, and this weekend -- after a summer of disruptive behavior -- a party erupted into violence and someone went to the hospital. That is what happens in the "do nothing/wait for providence" universe, time and again, and I can tell you this because it happens over and over and over and over again right in front of my eyes. That is what the city is combatting -- neighborhood deterioration, not just these houses in a vacuum or as lines on a spreadsheet.
.
By returning these structures to a well-maintained state and a single-family unit, we hope to see fewer of these golden "opportunities" for slumlords living in luxury in the Western suburbs of Chicago while we in Janesville's central city neighborhoods listen to sirens all night long.

Using taxpayer money to rehab properties that sell properties at a loss? Brilliant.

Detroit wasted millions in these taxpayer funded fixup boondoggles before realizing you can't fight and win against demographic shifts. Now, they are razing entire blocks. History has shown us the outcome, there's really no argument despite how the Gazette editorial will likely read.

It would surprise me if the Gazette turns out to be against this program. However this is why the city, county, state, & federal government have the money problems we have due to these kind of programs.

This is yet another example of morons running the city

Janesvillian we will have to agree or disagree who lives in the alternate universe.
So there already exists tax credits and extremely favorable tax benefits and the private sector isn't biting. That should tell you something in capital letters.
I do not understand your math on the demo and raze. I say cut your losses and not bet on a sure losing proposition. If the land has any value for building let Habitat put up something that will be new up to date and cost less than the $110000 the city would spend.

I thought we have been through this discussion on numerous occasions. This is not an "investment." It is a feel good throw away of money that has the appearance of being free because it came from a grant. Except for a few posters who probably live in the neighborhood and want their property values to increase I think you'd be hard pressed to find support for such an utter waste of tax payer dollars.

Good for the future of the city. But still a flawed plan. I would like to see this re-worked with a viable plan. Perhaps trying to arrange low-interest/no interest loans from local lenders to eliminate government hurdles. You definitely have to look at the long-term picture.
Thumbs down to kilgore for making it political. Take your political bashing somewhere else. I despise the other side. But now's not the time or place.

LISTEN: wortnik you have the right approach, Jvillain has the old failed Obama styled approach. It's just math.

wortnik, it's always easy to propose an alternative that comes from a universe which doesn't exist. The reality is that there are already tax credits and an extremely favorable passive loss carryover in the federal tax structure for landlords and that investment isn't happening. You suggest that demolition expenses could be recouped through sale of the lots, but that would only get back a few thousand at most and result in a tiny uptick in property tax revenue. Mathematically, the raze-and-sell option will only return what the city spends after something like 50 years, whereas the rehab option returns the city's investment after something like 20 years. (If even that seems long to you, consider that the city's return for new subdivision construction can be even longer -- the investment for a street complete with sewers is more than $1000/ft.) The best way to maximize the return on the CURRENT investment is rehab, and this also takes advantage of the sunk costs in an existing street in a way that new construction does not.

no- now they are sitting emply and put $100k in them. Let somebody buy them for $30 and spend their own money the CORRECT money for the neighborhood BTW. Who wants a $150k house in 4th ward or look west???????

The program goals are commendable, fixing up and restoring to workmanlike conditions in targeted neighborhoods. The city gets home ownership and property taxes in the years to come, the neighborhood gets a spark that may stimulate other investments.
But
The city through the grants MUST pay prevailing wages which unsurprisingly are higher that local wages. If these properties could be rehabbed locally with a ceiling as to how much to invest and a priority system to repair the major things first, this program would be a huge success. I would like to see a vetting process to ensure as much as possible that the inhabitants are willing and able to bear the full expenses of home ownership - taxes maintenance and repairs.
As the grants are now rewarded, requiring higher costs to rehab, I can't see how this process can be sustainable. Financially ,It would have been better in the example given to simply bulldoze the property. try to recoup some of the $25,740 plus demo costs by selling the property to neighboring owners or to Habitat than to "Lose" $47000 on the rehab project.
Encourage the private sector to meet the goals without the taxpayers through the grants footing the bill because of the expensive strings attached to those grant monies.