"Save that House! An Examination of Demolition Ordinance." _Many Authors [conference paper] - 0 views

housing demolition ordinances case studies survey demolitions tax

started by Metropolitan Institute on 04 Jan 12

#1 Metropolitan Institute on 04 Jan 12

 

Nasar, Jack, Victoria Morckel, and Jennifer Cowley. “Save that House! An Examination of Demolition Ordinance.” Paper to be presented at the annual conference for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 13-16, 2011.

Paper Abstract: To deter home demolitions or tear downs replaced with McMansions, communities may adopt demolition delay or moratorium ordinances. A delay ordinance delays a demolition but ultimately gives the property owner the right to demolish the structure. A moratorium stops or suspends all demolitions in the given area for a set period of time, perhaps, while the community considers a change in code or an update to a comprehensive plan. The property owners must demonstrate to the community why they should be permitted to demolish the building. Although tear-downs and demolitions happen regularly, there is little scholarly attention to them.

To learn more about these ordinances and their effectiveness, we e-mailed a survey to officials in 331 U.S. communities which had such ordinances (68.0 % had delay ordinances, 28.4 % had moratoriums, and 3.6% had both) and contact information. The survey had questions about the types of ordinances communities have to control demolitions, the length of the ordinances and what triggers enforcement of the ordinances, the number of applications for demolitions and actual demolitions that occurred in a set period, challenges to the ordinances, revisions to the ordinance, other regulations that control demolitions, as well as questions about background information on the participant and their community. Only 12.7% responded, possibly because participants had to do some detailed research.

Most of the ordinances were in states east of the Mississippi and most of them covered historic places, but approximately one third covered a broad community without any historic places or districts in it. As expected, demolition delay ordinances were more common than demolition moratoriums. We also found that the number of delay ordinances has been increasing over time. Delay ordinances on average suspended the demolition of a structure for six months. The length of the delay was not correlated at a statistically significant level with measures related to the number of demolitions before and after the ordinance. None of the communities that had data available on demolitions prior to and after passage of a delay ordinance experienced an increase in demolitions after the passage of the ordinance; 50 % reported a decrease in demolitions, and 50 % reported no change. Older ordinances were neither more nor less effective than newer ones. Tracking and collecting data from a larger sample of communities is necessary, as is further research on whether an ordinance is effective at raising community awareness about demolitions.

Qualitative data suggested other alternatives or variations for communities to consider, such as a demolition tax used by a community in Illinois, which reduced demolitions from 13 per year to nine per year, requiring a building permit before allowing a demolition to occur, or requiring fees to be paid for vacant buildings and having those fees increase each year the building is vacant.

Overall the verdict is still out. Some respondents had positive comments on the ordinances others were more skeptical. Context may affect the impact of the ordinances. An older declining community may see demolitions as a way to get rid of “eyesores,” whereas an area with high demand may experience demolitions as a way to upgrade structures. The increase in the number of ordinances highlights a need for better data on their effectiveness. For that, one would need a larger sample of places with each control. Thus, we hope that communities that adopt demolition regulations track the number of demolitions and applications per year prior to and after adopting the ordinance. We also believe that research might also do well to consider other measures.

References

Gale, D. (1991). The impacts of historic district designation: Planning policy implications. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, 127-142.

Langdon, P. (1991). In elite communities, a torrent of teardowns. Planning, 57, 25–27.

Nasar, J. L., Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Mantero, V. (2007). McMansions: The extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design, 12, 339-358.

Szold, T. (2005). Mansionization and its discontents: Planners and the challenge of regulating monster homes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 189-202.

Weber, R., Doussard, M., Dev Bhatta, S., & McGrath, D. (2006). Tearing the city down: Understanding demolition activity in gentrifying neighborhoods, Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 19-41.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">  Nasar, Jack, Victoria Morckel, and Jennifer Cowley. “Save that House! An Examination of Demolition Ordinance.” Paper to be presented at the annual conference for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 13-16, 2011. Paper Abstract: To deter home demolitions or tear downs replaced with McMansions, communities may adopt demolition delay or moratorium ordinances. A delay ordinance delays a demolition but ultimately gives the property owner the right to demolish the structure. A moratorium stops or suspends all demolitions in the given area for a set period of time, perhaps, while the community considers a change in code or an update to a comprehensive plan. The property owners must demonstrate to the community why they should be permitted to demolish the building. Although tear-downs and demolitions happen regularly, there is little scholarly attention to them. To learn more about these ordinances and their effectiveness, we e-mailed a survey to officials in 331 U.S. communities which had such ordinances (68.0 % had delay ordinances, 28.4 % had moratoriums, and 3.6% had both) and contact information. The survey had questions about the types of ordinances communities have to control demolitions, the length of the ordinances and what triggers enforcement of the ordinances, the number of applications for demolitions and actual demolitions that occurred in a set period, challenges to the ordinances, revisions to the ordinance, other regulations that control demolitions, as well as questions about background information on the participant and their community. Only 12.7% responded, possibly because participants had to do some detailed research. Most of the ordinances were in states east of the Mississippi and most of them covered historic places, but approximately one third covered a broad community without any historic places or districts in it. As expected, demolition delay ordinances were more common than demolition moratoriums. We also found that the number of delay ordinances has been increasing over time. Delay ordinances on average suspended the demolition of a structure for six months. The length of the delay was not correlated at a statistically significant level with measures related to the number of demolitions before and after the ordinance. None of the communities that had data available on demolitions prior to and after passage of a delay ordinance experienced an increase in demolitions after the passage of the ordinance; 50 % reported a decrease in demolitions, and 50 % reported no change. Older ordinances were neither more nor less effective than newer ones. Tracking and collecting data from a larger sample of communities is necessary, as is further research on whether an ordinance is effective at raising community awareness about demolitions. Qualitative data suggested other alternatives or variations for communities to consider, such as a demolition tax used by a community in Illinois, which reduced demolitions from 13 per year to nine per year, requiring a building permit before allowing a demolition to occur, or requiring fees to be paid for vacant buildings and having those fees increase each year the building is vacant. Overall the verdict is still out. Some respondents had positive comments on the ordinances others were more skeptical. Context may affect the impact of the ordinances. An older declining community may see demolitions as a way to get rid of “eyesores,” whereas an area with high demand may experience demolitions as a way to upgrade structures. The increase in the number of ordinances highlights a need for better data on their effectiveness. For that, one would need a larger sample of places with each control. Thus, we hope that communities that adopt demolition regulations track the number of demolitions and applications per year prior to and after adopting the ordinance. We also believe that research might also do well to consider other measures. References Gale, D. (1991). The impacts of historic district designation: Planning policy implications. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57, 127-142. Langdon, P. (1991). In elite communities, a torrent of teardowns. Planning, 57, 25–27. Nasar, J. L., Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Mantero, V. (2007). McMansions: The extent and regulation of super-sized houses. Journal of Urban Design, 12, 339-358. Szold, T. (2005). Mansionization and its discontents: Planners and the challenge of regulating monster homes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71, 189-202. Weber, R., Doussard, M., Dev Bhatta, S., & McGrath, D. (2006). Tearing the city down: Understanding demolition activity in gentrifying neighborhoods, Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 19-41.</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the Vacant Property Research Initiative group

Start a New Topic