Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

YoYoMoMa t1_iu5m4c8 wrote

This seems okay for now considering our housing market and need for a bigger tax base.

6

Cunninghams_right t1_iu5nknt wrote

well, as long as they're paying taxes and not letting them fall into disrepair, then it can be a positive thing. those are some big IFs, though.

18

cgumbyrun2 t1_iu65dj9 wrote

They pay rock bottom prices and therefore have very low tax liability. When it isn’t profitable they’ll just sit on them forever and let them fall into disrepair. Prices out low income locals as well. I don’t consider this a win. How about we get rid of the historic tax credits going to the multi million dollar homes in Guilford and Lake Roland. Much better solution to the taxation issue

13

yyyyy25ui t1_iu69tv4 wrote

Any way to get past the paywall?

0

S-Kunst t1_iu6ff43 wrote

Outsiders have been buying up properties for decades. Where the problem is located, is that the city is 100% negligent in how new property owners act, and what should be expected of them. I have a relative, who's NY in laws run a small house rehab company. They do none of the work, but sub contract all the work to small fry contractors. Some of the work they do is fine, but when they hit a snag, the NY end wants to bury the problem.

Still we see the locally owned Commercial Developement Co, is still getting permits for major projects, while its BOTCHED decaying Hendler Creamery job sits for nearly a decade. Why does the city allow them to abandon their incompetence at the Creamer site, and get new permits???

6

xlllxJackxlllx t1_iu6soio wrote

Ever seen one of the row houses with a tree growing up through it and out of the top where the roof is supposed to be? These are the kind of business ppl that let that shit happen.

6

MiseALepreuve t1_iu7at9p wrote

Replying to DeliMcPickles (#301,494)

They’re often still vacant, though. They’re just owned by some ought of state corporation intentionally neglecting them to bring down the value in the neighborhoods so they can buy more and eventually bulldoze entire blocks for some ugly corporate bullshit.

Occasionally they’ll rent them out but in the most corporate slumlord sort of manner.

This is not who we want buying houses in Baltimore

13

Autumn_Sweater t1_iu7hw2k wrote

these buyers have no economical way to buy a run down property, fix it up properly, and sell it or rent it out for a good profit. their goal is to sit on a bunch of properties, not pay much in taxes per year on them, and hope for some kind of redevelopment initiative from the government eventually to cash them out, or major tax incentives that will make it economical. in the meantime they're not doing anything of value here.

10

Cunninghams_right t1_iu7rhyk wrote

Replying to MiseALepreuve (#304,002)

> intentionally neglecting them to bring down the value in the neighborhoods

that's why I specifically called that out as one of the IFs.

email your council person and say that you want corporate buyers to pay heavy penalties if they do not rent the houses within a year.

3

Cunninghams_right t1_iu7rrzd wrote

Replying to aresef (#301,509)

higher ownership rates are ideal, but investment in the city is also a positive. we can't just wave a magic wand and make everything in the city better, the city needs money to solve root causes.

3

BadJoey89 t1_iu8aqz5 wrote

I work in commercial real estate and try to sell Baltimore to alot of investors, and businesses….There is a saying in the commercial real estate industry: Baltimore is scattered with the bones of outside developers.

There are a lot of investors from New York and DC who come and and say wow it’s SO cheap here and think the area has charm and alot of potential (which is true) and they say Wow this area looks like it’s going to transition and become nice soon……Welp They’ve been saying that since the 70’s and 80’s and we have a lower population now than we did in then. They’ve been right in some select, core markets over the years like Federal Hill, Fells, Canton and the Inner Harbor. But it’s been a very slow transition relative to the gentrification seen in other cities.

I’m optimistic we’ve hit bottom, but crime is 100% the most important issue affecting the ability for Baltimore to attract outside investment and start make it start growing again. Sure seems like it can’t get much worse.

9

Karmachanix t1_iu8lxnq wrote

The repeated use of the word "outside" is weird, paranoid, and almost xenophobic -- them bad, us good. What does it mean? Who edits these things? But it forms the basis of the article's best moment: "She called this wave of outside investment in Black neighborhoods a final stage of an “ethnic cleansing.”" This is some next level Obama birth certificate / aluminum airplanes can't take down concrete and steel buildings stuff!

3

Purple_Box3317 t1_iu8re54 wrote

Replying to BadJoey89 (#309,481)

Speaking to the choir, I’ve tried to help with development utilizing outside investors and the fact is nothing will change until the political leadership changes and we get a handle on crime.

4

Ph0ton_1n_a_F0xho1e t1_iubfkty wrote

Replying to aresef (#329,745)

Neither of those are about Baltimore’s housing which is some of the cheapest in the country lol.

Rent doesn’t go up from people buying vacants in shitty areas and Baltimore doesn’t have a growing population which is why it doesn’t have the housing supply issues that other places have.

Also your second article literally states the opposite:

> Large-scale rental house landlords often are blamed for rent hikes but still represent a tiny portion of single-family homes, said David Howard, director of the National Rental Home Council in Washington, D.C., a trade group representing single-family home landlords.

>“The idea that large, faceless, deep-pocketed out-of-town investors are taking over every housing market and dictating rents is just not true,” Howard said, speaking of what he called a half-dozen companies with tens of thousands of homes nationwide.

🤡🤡🤡🤡

1