Group items tagged

Mallach, Alan. "Meeting the Challenge of Distressed Property Investors in America's Neighborhoods." 1- 91. New York, NY: LISC, 2010. Introduction: "The mortgage crisis that has gripped the United States since 2007 has resulted in property owners losing millions of properties through foreclosure, with a loss of hundreds of billions of dollars in individual and community assets. Through the foreclosure process, the majority of these properties have been taken back by the mortgage lender and become 'real-estate-owned' or REO properties. For the first year or so after foreclosures took off in 2007, with lenders unprepared to deal with these properties and few buyers of any sort in the marketplace, REO properties often went begging. By the end of 2008, however, that was no longer the case. Private property investors - from "mom & pop" investors buying one or two properties to Wall Street firms and consortia of foreign investors buying entire portfolios - had moved back into the market in large numbers. Since early 2009, the ranks of investors have steadily grown, while it has become less accurate to refer to them as 'REO investors'. Rather than waiting for properties to come into lenders' REO inventories, distressed property investors - as they are more appropriately known - have been increasingly buying houses through short sales, buying non-performing mortgages, or bidding against foreclosing lenders at foreclosure sales. Today, their presence is a major factor in the marketplace of nearly every metropolitan area experiencing large numbers of foreclosures. Their activities are having a powerful effect on neighborhoods generally and on the neighborhood stabilization efforts of cities and non-profit community development corporations (CDCs) in particular. Their effect, however, is a matter of considerable disagreement and even controversy. The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to offer insight into how distressed property investors operate, and how their activ

Cleveland Community Research Partners and ReBuild Ohio. (2008). "$60 Million and Counting: The Cost of Vacant and Abandoned Properties to Eight Ohio Cities." Executive Summary: "This research documents the magnitude and cost of the vacant and abandoned properties problem in eight Ohio cities Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Ironton, Lima, Springfield, Toledo, Zanesville. The research found: * 25,000 vacant and abandoned properties * Widespread vacancies in both large and small cities * $15 million in annual city service costs * $49 million in cumulative lost property tax revenues to local governments and school districts * Weakened neighborhood housing markets with evidence of property flipping * Limited capacity of cities, on their own, to track and address vacant and abandoned properties

Dewar, Margaret. "Selling Tax-Reverted Land: Lessons from Cleveland and Detroit." Journal of the American Planning Association 72, no. 2 (2006): 167-80. "Property abandonment is widespread in many northeastern and Midwestern cities. Some cities succeed better than others at moving abandoned properties to new uses. Comparing Detroit and Cleveland, where indicators of demand for land look similar, reveals that Cleveland's land bank has been an effective approach to selling tax-reverted land for reuse, while Detroit's method of land disposition has been less successful. Cleveland integrates its approach into the mayor's agenda for housing development and supports redevelopment with many complementary efforts. Cleveland's land bank conveys land with clear title, has an accurate property inventory, "banks" property, and sells for predictable, low prices." (from article)

Brophy, Paul and Vey, Jennifer, 2002. "Seizing City Assets: Ten Steps to Urban Land Reform," The Brookings Institution, October 2002. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2002/10metropolitanpolicy_brophy/brophyveyvacantsteps.pdf Introduction: "One of a city's greatest assets is its available land for development. Unfortunately, many cities have land and properties that are vacant, abandoned, or under-used, with few policies and regulations in place to convert these assets into valuable, revenue-generating sites. This brief outlines ten action steps that state and local governments can follow to facilitate the development of urban land and buildings. Compiling an inventory of vacant parcels, planning for the assembly and reuse of land, and working to eliminate the many legal and administrative barriers to acquisition and development are just some of the actions the authors recommend for creating a more transparent, efficient, and effective system for private-market land development. The brief will discuss these and other proposed steps, and will highlight examples of successful practices implemented in states and localities throughout the U.S."