Vacant Property Registration Ordinances Benton Martin © 2009 Benton Martin

Introduction Predicted increase in vacant property Burden on Local Governments Cincinnati: banks owed over $200,000 Trouble locating owners/responsible parties Cities are turning to VPR ordinances Over 240 ordinances tracked by Safeguard Properties, 45 more proposed

Where Are the Ordinances Number of VPR Ordinances per State in 2009 (based loosely off Safeguard Properties database as of October 2009). Connecticut is counted as >20 because of the statewide ordinance. Safeguard tracks new VPRs and posts them to this website:

Major Components of VPR 1) Goals/definitions: Foreclosure-initiated: typically limited to residential buildings during period when the building may degenerate (seeks to preempt degeneration) Classic: unoccupied building/structure (sometimes excludes “for sale” or buildings with continual utilities/mail delivery). 2) Registration process/fee structure: Main distinguishing factor 3) Duties of Responsible Parties Range of burden: rodent abatement services, pools, contact info on door, fill plumbing with vegetable oil, security Re-use activities and plan, insurance 4) enforcement and cost recovery Fines/liens or criminal penalties

Types of Registration Classic Model Charges property owners fees after a property is vacant for a certain period of time Some charge an escalating fee Chula Vista Model Requires lenders to inspect the property after notice of foreclosure If vacant the lender must register the property (with registration fee) and hire a local management company to maintain the property

Pros and Cons Classic Model with escalating fees targets getting rid of vacant properties. Cities can use waivers to encourage owners to demolish or rehabilitate the property. Chula Vista targets maintenance—low registration fee encourages registration which can then be used to track maintenance

Emerging Trends Insurance: amount set by code enforcement office Combination Ordinances Specific Maintenance or Fee Schedules Aesthetic Requirements Plans for Property Helps a city decide who should get waivers

Types of Registration

Legal Foundation Nuisance Abatement power Through Home Rule or explicit nuisance abatement power in Dillon’s Rule class Constitutional Considerations Not ex post facto to enforce compliance based on years of vacancy Adjile, Inc. v. City of Wilmington, 2004 WL at *3 (Del. Super. 2004). Not a taking: just prohibiting unreasonable uses of property Evenson v. City of St. Paul Bd. of Appeals, 467 N.W.2d 363, 365 (Minn. App. 1991). Tax or Fee: depends on jurisdiction-most say tax Delaware: Tax if imposed generally... Without reference to peculiar benefits to particular property Seattle: Tax if the primary purpose is to raise revenue

Continuing Issues MERS: good or bad? Better than nothing, but may experience similar problems as has occurred with tracking mortgages Should the federal governments set up a system? Long Term Plans-Resources Best Methods-Varies by City Combination Ordinances Vigorous enforcement by motivated enforcement officers (Chula Vista does weekly inspections)