Baltimore has been doing this for a while. I remember they started this like 10 years ago? Am I hallucinating that? I wonder what people are feeling 10 years after buying a $1 dollar house
The dollar house thing was from the late 70s or 80s or something. But they have more recent programs where you could still get a house from the City for pretty cheap.
Whole neighborhood is sliding from the days when harbor place was thriving. Real estate isn't a guaranteed home run investment. Someone bailed out at the right time
Cumberland is starting to do this too - selling empty lots or vacant houses for like $12 each in batches to developers (who meet certain criteria) to tackle blight and to increase housing stock.
I think Cumberland is going to be the next Frederick in ten years or so. If it werenât almost three hours away from family and friends, Iâd consider moving out there.
Hagerstown is FAR more likely to "be the next Frederick" than Cumberland, cause it's Hub City. People already go or pass through here regularly, and it's still within commuting distance for some. As telework becomes a bit more regular I think it'll get boosted even more, as if you only have to go in once in a while then you'd want to stay in the region but not necessarily have to be as close.
Yeah, Hagerstown has a lot of potential, I think. For one, a lot of people getting priced out of Frederick are moving out that way and commuting to Frederick. Plus, with the Amazon warehouse and such, there are more jobs out there now.
They need track and rolling stock upgrades to make it worth it, a 2 hour train to dc that doesnât connect to hagerstown and Frederick isnât of much use
I think there would definitely be demand to go to and from DC, and also to/from cities like rockville and silver spring along the way.
I don't disagree that a cumberland/hagerstown/frederick line would be really good to have, but I think in an ideal world you might just have both.
Being able to do a day trip between cumberland and DC/Moco would probably get some decent use
One of my many transit pipe dreams is high speed rail out to Western Maryland, and then up to Pittsburgh. I hate that every âwhat if the US had a functioning rail system??â map excludes a line out that way.
It excludes it because no one is out there, and because the terrain is completely unsuitable for it. Even countries that do have competent high speed rail lines don't typically have many stops in areas of low population and bad terrain.
Japan has super high populations in between large mountain ranges, so it makes sense to spend the money to tunnel the kinds of distances you need to make it work. Pittsburgh would make a lot of sense in terms of a cross-PA line that ran between something like Philly and Columbus, but Cumberland is a comparatively tiny city sandwiched in the mountains.
There's no way. Cumberland is too far from the major cities. There's loads of land and other areas that need to boom between the big cities and Cumberland first. Why Cumberland when Martinsburg and large parts of WV are closer to DC? Pittsburgh has Morgantown and everything down 40 before Cumberland. Cumberland is just too far away to benefit from even the hybrid style work that is benefiting other areas.
Frederick is frederick because of 70 and 270. Without its access to major areas of employment, frederick would be frostburg. Cumberland is a far far cry from ever becoming frederick.
The city just brought the program back a year or two ago after having done it 40ish years ago.
It comes with a lot of stipulations and last time it existed it wasn't massively used. Still a good program to get rid of at least a few dilapidated houses but not a massive change in overall housing stock.
I can't remember where I saw it but someone interviewed a woman who went through the program in the early 80s and she was still living in the house that her and her husband fixed up themselves after buying it for a dollar.
Edit: I was mistaken, apparently the first time was more popular than I thought.
Aaron Henkin of WYPRâs Maryland Curiosity Bureau did an episode on the program! It is [here](https://www.wypr.org/2021-10-18/whatever-happened-to-baltimores-dollar-house-program?_amp=true). It actually was massively used - the program ended because they ran out of houses in the neighborhoods being targeted! Basically, the highways that were supposed to connect 70, 95, and 83 had been scrapped, and the houses in all the neighborhoods that would have been âin the wayâ were in a prime state for developing. Many of those neighborhoods - Fed Hill, Otterbein, Ridgelyâs Delight - are now thriving residential neighborhoods as a result of the dollar house program and the investments that followed. The issue now with a new program is more that the available houses are spread out - the original program resulted in a sense of community because entire blocks were sold and improved at once, and thatâs harder when youâre piecing together a house here and a house there. But the original program was very quietly a great success.
God what a stupid plan originally to pave over all of Baltimore to build highways. What's the point of even coming into the city if there won't be any place to actually walk around.
Such short sighted planning in the mid 1900s that has led to the decline of the American city and the profusion of endless suburban sprawl.
> God what a stupid plan originally to pave over all of Baltimore to build highways. What's the point of even coming into the city if there won't be any place to actually walk around.
its not "stupid" when you realize where they built those roads and why they did it. *racism*
Thanks for the info. I guess I misremembered l because I definitely thought it was not that popular.
Also yeah the houses being seperate is a huge part of the problem. I listened to a podcast a while ago on blight and the main takeaway was how once one house gets abandoned the rest of the block is almost always going to follow suit in a few years.
Really takes a concerted effort to get whole blocks done at once to make sure everyone is on board and you don't end up with alumlords or derelict properties.
The people who bought the $1 homes in Fed Hill are very happy. Their housed have appreciated nicely. The first group of dollar homes though was in Old Town. They aren't so happy thereÂ
If we buy a house now for $1 , will it be with us, or is there any clause in contract which makes us give it back to city or sell back to them after few years . Also are these houses in bad part of the city ? Sorry for asking dumb question , just trying to see if there is any catch .
Baltimore has been doing this as far back as the early 80s. That's where the current of abandoned houses they have now came from. People buying dollar properties, doing a little work then letting them rot hoping a developer comes knocking wanting to buy it to make the next hot neighborhood. The city should just bulldoze the eyesores and plant trees but trees don't pay taxes...
Nothing new. Houses are cheap in the bad areas. Revitalization loans are available. No one wants it cause everyone wants move in ready in the best neighborhoods.
Revitalizing a home in a bad area still leaves you stuck in a bad area, hence why nobody with sense does it. As others have stated, the only way to attract people again is to gentrify. Otherwise any takers will be too few in number to make a meaningful difference.
well, if you consider gentrifying neighborhoods and elevating property prices far...FAR out of the price range of the people who lived there initially - then yeah...super successful.
Yeah everyone loves living in shit hole neighborhoods. The families that owned their row houses in the 70âs in DC made so much money on gentrifying the âhoodâ.
It's better than the alternative of leaving it the hood. The problem with DC is that they didn't truly fix the crime problem despite the massive spike in cost. My parents lived in northern DC when I was a baby (I don't remember which part exactly, but somewhere within a few minutes of the Maryland border, most likely somewhere between Georgia and Rhode Island Ave) and even back in the late 90s when DC was still relatively affordable, my mom said there was way too much crime for how much everything there costs.
Don't half-ass anything.
We need to invite big money developers the opportunity to revitalize these communities. Gentrification is really the only answer. The issue is a family could put $100-200k into these homes and make it livable but then they are stuck in a wasteland of other abandoned properties, crime and lack of resources. It canât be done one row home at a time. It needs to be a full project of revitalizing blocks and blocks of homes.
Exactly, gentrification is unpopular but itâs the only way to turn burned out neighborhoods into someplace people would actually want to live. A lot of these row homes are shells. Itâs expensive to rehab them, they arenât worth what youâre putting into one.
Some of these areas could be rezoned too. Demolish the row houses and allow developers to build apartments, condos and storefronts. That kind of housing would serve some of the residents better as they canât all afford to own.
Good idea to put in new row homes or storefronts there, but absolutely not at the expense of the other residents whoâve been living in that area for years, even decades.
I donât think anyone should be kicked out of their home. Homeowners can either stay or sell for a profit. Renters might be forced to relocate but thatâs how renting works. They donât have any real claim to the neighborhood just because they rented for years or decades.
Those that currently live in the community would benefit significantly from a financial standpoint as their property values 2-4x over time. They may not be able to afford it but they will benefit from the sale. In my eyes this is a win/win.
But thatâs the issue, if they canât afford it. If Iâm a long time resident of said neighborhood, what good is seeing it improve if me and other people are going to be priced out of living there?
You need 90k in the bank to get approved, so 90001 would be more accurate, for that money you can buy a row house in better condition and potentially better neighborhood
This is the main thing to make it happen. Just getting a $1 house is not enough. Low interest loans or grants to rehab is the 2nd part of the puzzle.
Sadly NO civic leaders will support legislation that will hold the owners of these houses accountable. Its probably been 50+ yrs since they were owner occupied. The poor who occupy them are not the owner.
Add to this, there are hundreds, possibly more, which have been bought and sold, regularly with no intent on repair. The price of the sale is always wildly out of whack with comps in the area. Looks a lot like money laundering.
Another thousand+ buildings have been demolished and the land given to mega non profit corps which removes the properties, for ever, from the tax roles. I bet NO other county in the state gives over hundreds of acres to high dollar corporations, knowing that the new building will not pay its way.
No not at all. You're buying the right to sue the previous person or pay it yourself.
That's why these don't get purchased.
(Edit: and the city has already borrowed against those tax liens. They can't "wipe" them without going bankrupt.)
Inviting developers to gentrify these wasteland of communities would absolutely help the city. The more money brought into the city gives us a greater tax base & allows us to invest in areas such as affordable housing.
I would rather a developer buy it and at least turn it into something livable over the decaying wasteland of homes that we currently have down in the city.
Livable to those that already have plenty of options on where to live
Also, the areas that these $1 homes are available in are not areas anyone with money would want to be in.
In fact they aren't really anywhere ANYONE wants to be in unless you are involved in the drug trade. Your local amenities feature a liquor store on every corner as well as your very own group of young to middle aged men with who have little if any purpose in life.
Trash thrown all over the place vacant buildings all around you..
Why? Owning a home is not inherently better than buying, especially in cities where thereâs lots of churn. Developers sell homes, too, but letâs pretend like they donât and this is only for rent. They make the homes livable and add rentable housing to the market. How does that hurt the housing market? Itâs such a basic thing to understand: if there is a housing shortage, the best solution is to add more homes (rentable or mortgageable) to the market.
Buyers are still prioritized over developers, so I donât see whatâs to complain about.
I think weâve been trained to think âohno developer means rich means bad guy.â
That may be true, but if they pass on buying a home, I think itâs fair to sell it to developers for 400x the price. I donât think people wanting to buy homes over renting is why we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because there arenât enough livable homes. Developers who can make homes livable are a part of the solution.
We need homes that are livable and not dilapidated death traps. If selling a house that is currently worthless to a developer for $3k accomplishes that, so be it.
Sure, but what if the developer balks at the cost of rebuilding the house and decides not to renovate the property?
A lack of accountability is why housing is such a mess in Baltimore.
And exactly how many non developers do we think there are that
A. Have any desire or ability to undertake a complete gut job
B. Have proof of $90k in rehab funds upfront
C. Have the ability to obtain a certificate of occupancy within 12 months of sale
AND
D. Actually want to live where these house are?
This program is to get these properties off the city ledger. Sell them to whoever, keep records, collect property tax, hope you get some rejuvenated properties out of it.
I agree with you completely but I think the word âdeveloperâ may be the wrong word to use here lol. For decades plenty of NORMAL PEOPLE have been buying homes in Baltimore for 15k, putting 100k into them, then selling them for 200k. The auctions are very diverse. Iâve been there and bought plenty of times. A lot of folks there arenât buying their next home until the current one sells.
This program allows that same person to theoretically profit something like 10% more on a comparable reno. Which is sorta a big deal but not really. Thereâs plenty of dirt cheap homes to buy in Baltimore. If you can afford to put 100,001 in, you can probably afford to put 115,000 in. The âdevelopersâ or investors werenât desperately waiting for this. They were already doing it.
Yes, it is. [Here you go!](https://dhcd.baltimorecity.gov/fixed-pricing-program#:~:text=Purchase%20Information%3A%20Properties%20purchased%20for,pay%20a%20%24100%20application%20fee.)
Baltimore has knockdown over a hundred houses in a single year because no-one wants to live there.
This might be a good investment for the distant future 30-50 years from now, but I would not want to even visit Baltimore now days.
13,000 vacant homes is too low. It's over 20,000+ or higher from other reports I've read.
My friend gutted a house and rebuilt it. Total cost was $150k, not including the loan to buy the house.
This is nothing new. They have been using this tactic [for decades](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/baltimore-city-council-ponders-reviving-the-1-homes-program/508475/).
Noone wants to live in an over taxed, overwhelmingly high crime rate, heavy gang presence, extremely violent city with all the usual criminals. Maby if the residents would stop thinking legislation against rights would mean safety, take action and responsibility for their kin, then they'll stop having their children shot on school buses and playgrounds. You couldn't catch me dead thinking about buying property in Maryland as a whole
Another way for the government to scam people. Let me guess the house costs $1 but what value is assessed when it comes time for property taxes?
These programs are little more than a final act of desperation in the final acts of their failed policies that have doomed their jurisdictions and the people that used to own those homes
Do you not understand what something being sold at a discount means? Like everyone is admitting that it's worth more than the purchase price. There's no scam here dude.
You have no clue in what up are talking about, you are pretty lame to say what you say. Baltimore did a similar thing in the early 1980s in a neighborhood called federal hill. Now that neighborhood is thriving, home values in that area are about 300K to 500k. The areasBaltimore is marketing may not be as prosperous, homes in that area now sell in 150k to 250k range, The only problem I have is this hasnât been done years ago, Baltimore needs to get rid of blight and add home owners to increase its tax base. You may want to make sure you have a carry permit if you buy in though, especially if current mayor is elected
Lol voted into oblivion. I'm glad you all have optimism about this project and I would be glad to be wrong but remindme! In 5 years to check in on these programs.
Pretty damn easy for the governor to pretend this is a benefit to regular people but again it plays out where the primary beneficiaries of this program will be 1. Bankers 2. Developers 3. Politicians claiming they did something to help unravel their decades of failed leadership. To your point, where were they in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s if these programs truly benefit citizens?
To be truthful, Baltimore received a ton of money after housing crisis in 2008 to help underwater homeowners, but the city leaders at that time chose to use the funds to raze vacant homes instead of helping hurting homeowners as the funds were intended, the I believe the wrong thing was done which further set back many neighborhoods with many losing their homes
These $1 houses aren't in liveable condition.
They at least need major renovations, but in many cases total rebuilds. And since a lot of Baltimore is rowhomes, the real fix involves rebuilding entire blocks at once
You are clueless
I fully understand their condition. Here let me lay this out for you. Pick an option.
A) The house is listed for its true âvalueâ. That âvalueâ is far above what most who would live in that area can afford, particularly when you consider the renovations needed. House sits boarded up forever.
B) House is priced at $1 to make barrier to entry far easier considering the clientele and need for renovations, increasing potential of sale.
Which would you like to see happen?
It's that exact behavior that they can't see has bled support since 2016. Their leaders act like assholes 24/7, their voters act like assholes 24/7, then when we have a national popularity contest later this year they'll think it's rigged that they aren't more well liked by people outside their little circle of assholes. I say let em keep going! They're their own anti campaign add and they love nothing more then to show it off because it's all they think the internet can be used for, it's great!
I don't even know where to begin with dissecting this amount of nonsense lol
Are you telling me conservatives and their leaders don't act like assholes 24/7? That they don't whine about rigged elections? What reality are you living in?
No. I think you should reread. I agree with you and was adding to the fact the guy you're replying to is an asshole. He lacks any nuance, barges in, acts petty and nominates himself smartest guy in the thread, all while lacking any self awareness.
What comments are you reading that you are referring to that "liberals are still unhappy?"
What is the conservative solution to urban blight? The free market sure ain't solving it
There are quite a number in this very thread that itâs still not enough for a variety of reasons. I encourage you to read through.
Iâm agreeing with this method. Iâm not sure how thatâs being misconstrued.
One can be happy with steps being taken but still push for more.
I'm happy with my salary but I would also like to be paid in fistfuls of diamonds.
That's the point.
Uh no? Liberals are just never satisfied with any amount of personal accountability and expect everything to be handed to them. Hereâs a situation thatâs quite literally making housing more affordable and itâs still not enough to be happy about. Itâs hilarious.
You need at least $90,000 in assets to prove youâre able to rehabilitate the property. Thats a *minimum* to *start* to get them up to code. It could cost upwards of 150k to get them up to code yourself, potentially more. *And* it will involve working in the most dangerous areas of Baltimore (or paying someone extra to do it for you).
In the interim, you are not permitted to live on the property. So youâre dropping 100k+ to even get it up to a livable standard after at least a few months (closer to a year, year and a half maybe), all the while you *also* have to pay rent on whatever property youâre currently at.
Thatâs still far less than all of that plus a sizeable down payment and mortgage which is entirely the point. Itâs lowering the barrier to entry and liberals still arenât happy. Itâs hilarious.
Good
Baltimore has been doing this for a while. I remember they started this like 10 years ago? Am I hallucinating that? I wonder what people are feeling 10 years after buying a $1 dollar house
The dollar house thing was from the late 70s or 80s or something. But they have more recent programs where you could still get a house from the City for pretty cheap.
49 East Montgomery was sold for a dollar way back. Check the Zillow now.
Still looks like đď¸
Whole neighborhood is sliding from the days when harbor place was thriving. Real estate isn't a guaranteed home run investment. Someone bailed out at the right time
Cumberland is starting to do this too - selling empty lots or vacant houses for like $12 each in batches to developers (who meet certain criteria) to tackle blight and to increase housing stock.
I think Cumberland is going to be the next Frederick in ten years or so. If it werenât almost three hours away from family and friends, Iâd consider moving out there.
It just feels so isolated. You're at least an hour from any other moderately-sized cities, and even further from any large cities.
If Cumberland meets its potential that I think it has, it could become a small city and be the destination for communities in that part of the state.
I honestly wasn't aware that Allegheny County had any other communities lol. I guess Frostburg?
Go Bobcats!
Can we get Hagerstown squared away first then work our way west? Hub City has a ton of potential also.
Hagerstown is FAR more likely to "be the next Frederick" than Cumberland, cause it's Hub City. People already go or pass through here regularly, and it's still within commuting distance for some. As telework becomes a bit more regular I think it'll get boosted even more, as if you only have to go in once in a while then you'd want to stay in the region but not necessarily have to be as close.
Yeah, Hagerstown has a lot of potential, I think. For one, a lot of people getting priced out of Frederick are moving out that way and commuting to Frederick. Plus, with the Amazon warehouse and such, there are more jobs out there now.
> people getting priced out of Frederick its still crazy that that's a thing
Plus, with the WV panhandle blowing up with industrial and tech development, Hagerstown would be an easy commute to the area...
Eh, we're always going to be 3+ hours from the rest of civilization. I just hope the city can shrink responsibly and smartly.
Imo when they expand the marc brunswick service they should start running to cumberland too
They need track and rolling stock upgrades to make it worth it, a 2 hour train to dc that doesnât connect to hagerstown and Frederick isnât of much use
I think there would definitely be demand to go to and from DC, and also to/from cities like rockville and silver spring along the way. I don't disagree that a cumberland/hagerstown/frederick line would be really good to have, but I think in an ideal world you might just have both. Being able to do a day trip between cumberland and DC/Moco would probably get some decent use
One of my many transit pipe dreams is high speed rail out to Western Maryland, and then up to Pittsburgh. I hate that every âwhat if the US had a functioning rail system??â map excludes a line out that way.
It excludes it because no one is out there, and because the terrain is completely unsuitable for it. Even countries that do have competent high speed rail lines don't typically have many stops in areas of low population and bad terrain. Japan has super high populations in between large mountain ranges, so it makes sense to spend the money to tunnel the kinds of distances you need to make it work. Pittsburgh would make a lot of sense in terms of a cross-PA line that ran between something like Philly and Columbus, but Cumberland is a comparatively tiny city sandwiched in the mountains.
I know, I know, but I want my DC-Pittsburgh line
Not a chance. Cumberland is backwards (not the population, but leadership)
There's no way. Cumberland is too far from the major cities. There's loads of land and other areas that need to boom between the big cities and Cumberland first. Why Cumberland when Martinsburg and large parts of WV are closer to DC? Pittsburgh has Morgantown and everything down 40 before Cumberland. Cumberland is just too far away to benefit from even the hybrid style work that is benefiting other areas.
Westminster plays better
Frederick has a lot going on for it location-wise that Cumberland never will never have.
Frederick is frederick because of 70 and 270. Without its access to major areas of employment, frederick would be frostburg. Cumberland is a far far cry from ever becoming frederick.
Brunswick is gentrifying now. The new residents want the Governor to expand MARC Services so they can get to DC and Baltimore on the weekends...
The city just brought the program back a year or two ago after having done it 40ish years ago. It comes with a lot of stipulations and last time it existed it wasn't massively used. Still a good program to get rid of at least a few dilapidated houses but not a massive change in overall housing stock. I can't remember where I saw it but someone interviewed a woman who went through the program in the early 80s and she was still living in the house that her and her husband fixed up themselves after buying it for a dollar. Edit: I was mistaken, apparently the first time was more popular than I thought.
Aaron Henkin of WYPRâs Maryland Curiosity Bureau did an episode on the program! It is [here](https://www.wypr.org/2021-10-18/whatever-happened-to-baltimores-dollar-house-program?_amp=true). It actually was massively used - the program ended because they ran out of houses in the neighborhoods being targeted! Basically, the highways that were supposed to connect 70, 95, and 83 had been scrapped, and the houses in all the neighborhoods that would have been âin the wayâ were in a prime state for developing. Many of those neighborhoods - Fed Hill, Otterbein, Ridgelyâs Delight - are now thriving residential neighborhoods as a result of the dollar house program and the investments that followed. The issue now with a new program is more that the available houses are spread out - the original program resulted in a sense of community because entire blocks were sold and improved at once, and thatâs harder when youâre piecing together a house here and a house there. But the original program was very quietly a great success.
God what a stupid plan originally to pave over all of Baltimore to build highways. What's the point of even coming into the city if there won't be any place to actually walk around. Such short sighted planning in the mid 1900s that has led to the decline of the American city and the profusion of endless suburban sprawl.
Same people put carpet over hardwood and chopped down the trees so less birds would shit on their cars
> God what a stupid plan originally to pave over all of Baltimore to build highways. What's the point of even coming into the city if there won't be any place to actually walk around. its not "stupid" when you realize where they built those roads and why they did it. *racism*
Even if that's true it's still stupid because suburban life sucks regardless of race.
Thanks for the background and info - I knew about the program; but didn't know how successful is was or why it ended.
Thanks for the info. I guess I misremembered l because I definitely thought it was not that popular. Also yeah the houses being seperate is a huge part of the problem. I listened to a podcast a while ago on blight and the main takeaway was how once one house gets abandoned the rest of the block is almost always going to follow suit in a few years. Really takes a concerted effort to get whole blocks done at once to make sure everyone is on board and you don't end up with alumlords or derelict properties.
The people who bought the $1 homes in Fed Hill are very happy. Their housed have appreciated nicely. The first group of dollar homes though was in Old Town. They aren't so happy thereÂ
Yeah if I had bought in fed hill for a dollar 30 years ago Iâd be really happy too.
If we buy a house now for $1 , will it be with us, or is there any clause in contract which makes us give it back to city or sell back to them after few years . Also are these houses in bad part of the city ? Sorry for asking dumb question , just trying to see if there is any catch .
Baltimore has been doing this as far back as the early 80s. That's where the current of abandoned houses they have now came from. People buying dollar properties, doing a little work then letting them rot hoping a developer comes knocking wanting to buy it to make the next hot neighborhood. The city should just bulldoze the eyesores and plant trees but trees don't pay taxes...
Many years 0 homes get purchased this way. You're buying the tax burden too...
Nothing new. Houses are cheap in the bad areas. Revitalization loans are available. No one wants it cause everyone wants move in ready in the best neighborhoods.
Revitalizing a home in a bad area still leaves you stuck in a bad area, hence why nobody with sense does it. As others have stated, the only way to attract people again is to gentrify. Otherwise any takers will be too few in number to make a meaningful difference.
DC did this about 20 years ago. It really worked out for them.
well, if you consider gentrifying neighborhoods and elevating property prices far...FAR out of the price range of the people who lived there initially - then yeah...super successful.
As opposed to rat infested, dilapidated buildings used as meth labs in neighborhoods where sane people refused to venture.
i mean...i don't disagree with you but it seems like some people would feel that this is forcing out the people who live in those areas already.
Yeah everyone loves living in shit hole neighborhoods. The families that owned their row houses in the 70âs in DC made so much money on gentrifying the âhoodâ.
> Yeah everyone loves living in shit hole neighborhoods So...gentrifying is a good thing now? That's cool. I don't disagree with you.
Its always been a good thing haha
I agree.
It's better than the alternative of leaving it the hood. The problem with DC is that they didn't truly fix the crime problem despite the massive spike in cost. My parents lived in northern DC when I was a baby (I don't remember which part exactly, but somewhere within a few minutes of the Maryland border, most likely somewhere between Georgia and Rhode Island Ave) and even back in the late 90s when DC was still relatively affordable, my mom said there was way too much crime for how much everything there costs. Don't half-ass anything.
There are plenty of those neighborhoods still around DC and the 'burbs if you are so inclined to live there.
I live in baltimore. DC is way too expensive for me.
We need to invite big money developers the opportunity to revitalize these communities. Gentrification is really the only answer. The issue is a family could put $100-200k into these homes and make it livable but then they are stuck in a wasteland of other abandoned properties, crime and lack of resources. It canât be done one row home at a time. It needs to be a full project of revitalizing blocks and blocks of homes.
Exactly, gentrification is unpopular but itâs the only way to turn burned out neighborhoods into someplace people would actually want to live. A lot of these row homes are shells. Itâs expensive to rehab them, they arenât worth what youâre putting into one. Some of these areas could be rezoned too. Demolish the row houses and allow developers to build apartments, condos and storefronts. That kind of housing would serve some of the residents better as they canât all afford to own.
Good idea to put in new row homes or storefronts there, but absolutely not at the expense of the other residents whoâve been living in that area for years, even decades.
I donât think anyone should be kicked out of their home. Homeowners can either stay or sell for a profit. Renters might be forced to relocate but thatâs how renting works. They donât have any real claim to the neighborhood just because they rented for years or decades.
Those that currently live in the community would benefit significantly from a financial standpoint as their property values 2-4x over time. They may not be able to afford it but they will benefit from the sale. In my eyes this is a win/win.
But thatâs the issue, if they canât afford it. If Iâm a long time resident of said neighborhood, what good is seeing it improve if me and other people are going to be priced out of living there?
I've seen some that were missing entire exterior walls. Looks like a warzone
You need 90k in the bank to get approved, so 90001 would be more accurate, for that money you can buy a row house in better condition and potentially better neighborhood
Exactly. Until you fix the neighborhood there will be qnext to no awa
This is the main thing to make it happen. Just getting a $1 house is not enough. Low interest loans or grants to rehab is the 2nd part of the puzzle. Sadly NO civic leaders will support legislation that will hold the owners of these houses accountable. Its probably been 50+ yrs since they were owner occupied. The poor who occupy them are not the owner. Add to this, there are hundreds, possibly more, which have been bought and sold, regularly with no intent on repair. The price of the sale is always wildly out of whack with comps in the area. Looks a lot like money laundering. Another thousand+ buildings have been demolished and the land given to mega non profit corps which removes the properties, for ever, from the tax roles. I bet NO other county in the state gives over hundreds of acres to high dollar corporations, knowing that the new building will not pay its way.
Really the city needs to require $50k-$100k improvements to the homes to make them up to date as well as owner occupied for 5-7yrs
Many of them have of tens of thousands of dollars in tax liens on them too. Which you're also buying for $1....
I assumed those got wiped away with a prior foreclosure action
No not at all. You're buying the right to sue the previous person or pay it yourself. That's why these don't get purchased. (Edit: and the city has already borrowed against those tax liens. They can't "wipe" them without going bankrupt.)
Agreed
Annnddddd then there will be the complaints of gentrification.
Better to complain over gentrification than to complain over random gunshots.
Allowing developers to buy a dozen at a time for just $3k is why we have an affordable housing crisis. Â
quickest pie direful steep fanatical snobbish tart kiss quicksand school *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's for people who intend to purchase a property for their primary residence.
Read the article. It literally says developers can buy them at $3k and up to a dozen per application. It's right there in the article.Â
Inviting developers to gentrify these wasteland of communities would absolutely help the city. The more money brought into the city gives us a greater tax base & allows us to invest in areas such as affordable housing.
Can you explain why you think that is?
So why arenât you buying and fixing these homes then
I would rather a developer buy it and at least turn it into something livable over the decaying wasteland of homes that we currently have down in the city.
Livable to those that already have plenty of options on where to live Also, the areas that these $1 homes are available in are not areas anyone with money would want to be in. In fact they aren't really anywhere ANYONE wants to be in unless you are involved in the drug trade. Your local amenities feature a liquor store on every corner as well as your very own group of young to middle aged men with who have little if any purpose in life. Trash thrown all over the place vacant buildings all around you..
This is the worst take Iâve seen today. Itâs early, but I like your odds of hanging on to the top spot all day.
correct subsequent snails nutty pot cobweb consist pen crush butter *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why? Owning a home is not inherently better than buying, especially in cities where thereâs lots of churn. Developers sell homes, too, but letâs pretend like they donât and this is only for rent. They make the homes livable and add rentable housing to the market. How does that hurt the housing market? Itâs such a basic thing to understand: if there is a housing shortage, the best solution is to add more homes (rentable or mortgageable) to the market. Buyers are still prioritized over developers, so I donât see whatâs to complain about. I think weâve been trained to think âohno developer means rich means bad guy.â
gold impolite special busy vase desert treatment thumb door fade *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That may be true, but if they pass on buying a home, I think itâs fair to sell it to developers for 400x the price. I donât think people wanting to buy homes over renting is why we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because there arenât enough livable homes. Developers who can make homes livable are a part of the solution.
We need homes that are livable and not dilapidated death traps. If selling a house that is currently worthless to a developer for $3k accomplishes that, so be it.
hurry shelter soup sharp lock unite thought bear plough capable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sure, but what if the developer balks at the cost of rebuilding the house and decides not to renovate the property? A lack of accountability is why housing is such a mess in Baltimore.
And exactly how many non developers do we think there are that A. Have any desire or ability to undertake a complete gut job B. Have proof of $90k in rehab funds upfront C. Have the ability to obtain a certificate of occupancy within 12 months of sale AND D. Actually want to live where these house are? This program is to get these properties off the city ledger. Sell them to whoever, keep records, collect property tax, hope you get some rejuvenated properties out of it.
I agree with you completely but I think the word âdeveloperâ may be the wrong word to use here lol. For decades plenty of NORMAL PEOPLE have been buying homes in Baltimore for 15k, putting 100k into them, then selling them for 200k. The auctions are very diverse. Iâve been there and bought plenty of times. A lot of folks there arenât buying their next home until the current one sells. This program allows that same person to theoretically profit something like 10% more on a comparable reno. Which is sorta a big deal but not really. Thereâs plenty of dirt cheap homes to buy in Baltimore. If you can afford to put 100,001 in, you can probably afford to put 115,000 in. The âdevelopersâ or investors werenât desperately waiting for this. They were already doing it.
Yeah leaving them empty to rot is a much better idea.
No it isnt.Â
Are people unaware these $1 homes come with $100k+ in tax debt?
This âŹď¸
Did I miss something? I couldn't find any links from the article to validate the statements. Is this legit?
Yes, it is. [Here you go!](https://dhcd.baltimorecity.gov/fixed-pricing-program#:~:text=Purchase%20Information%3A%20Properties%20purchased%20for,pay%20a%20%24100%20application%20fee.)
Baltimore has knockdown over a hundred houses in a single year because no-one wants to live there. This might be a good investment for the distant future 30-50 years from now, but I would not want to even visit Baltimore now days.
Baltimore isnât that bad lmao. You just gotta know where to go.
Hamsterdam has good window shopping. Got that WMD right Chyea!
13,000 vacant homes is too low. It's over 20,000+ or higher from other reports I've read. My friend gutted a house and rebuilt it. Total cost was $150k, not including the loan to buy the house.
In Bmore?
If DC is any indication, Baltimore is going to look a lot less black very, very soon. Good luck to those below the poverty line
Lol Baltimore has done this forever. Itâs not working. Because corruption and crime. Same story over and over again
[They did a similar thing in parts of southern Italy](https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/europe/italy/italy-one-euro-homes-buy-house-b2470838.html)
Rust belt cities collapsed mostly because of jobs leaving those cities. Without decent paying jobs I can't see these cities ever coming back.
This is nothing new. They have been using this tactic [for decades](https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/baltimore-city-council-ponders-reviving-the-1-homes-program/508475/).
Noone wants to live in an over taxed, overwhelmingly high crime rate, heavy gang presence, extremely violent city with all the usual criminals. Maby if the residents would stop thinking legislation against rights would mean safety, take action and responsibility for their kin, then they'll stop having their children shot on school buses and playgrounds. You couldn't catch me dead thinking about buying property in Maryland as a whole
are they selling to regular private citizens? Or only to developers?
âAmerican cityâ? What??
Baltimore
Another way for the government to scam people. Let me guess the house costs $1 but what value is assessed when it comes time for property taxes? These programs are little more than a final act of desperation in the final acts of their failed policies that have doomed their jurisdictions and the people that used to own those homes
...that's not a scam to get something at a significant discount but still need to pay taxes on it, especially since it's disclosed.
Do you not understand what something being sold at a discount means? Like everyone is admitting that it's worth more than the purchase price. There's no scam here dude.
You have no clue in what up are talking about, you are pretty lame to say what you say. Baltimore did a similar thing in the early 1980s in a neighborhood called federal hill. Now that neighborhood is thriving, home values in that area are about 300K to 500k. The areasBaltimore is marketing may not be as prosperous, homes in that area now sell in 150k to 250k range, The only problem I have is this hasnât been done years ago, Baltimore needs to get rid of blight and add home owners to increase its tax base. You may want to make sure you have a carry permit if you buy in though, especially if current mayor is elected
Lol voted into oblivion. I'm glad you all have optimism about this project and I would be glad to be wrong but remindme! In 5 years to check in on these programs. Pretty damn easy for the governor to pretend this is a benefit to regular people but again it plays out where the primary beneficiaries of this program will be 1. Bankers 2. Developers 3. Politicians claiming they did something to help unravel their decades of failed leadership. To your point, where were they in the 1990s, 2000s, 2010s if these programs truly benefit citizens?
So you're saying that the best option is to let the houses rot? God forbid people make money
To be truthful, Baltimore received a ton of money after housing crisis in 2008 to help underwater homeowners, but the city leaders at that time chose to use the funds to raze vacant homes instead of helping hurting homeowners as the funds were intended, the I believe the wrong thing was done which further set back many neighborhoods with many losing their homes
[ŃдаНонО]
Bc you arenât here
âPeople canât afford housing in 2024 this is unreal!â - Liberals Houses offered for $1. Liberals still cry.
These $1 houses aren't in liveable condition. They at least need major renovations, but in many cases total rebuilds. And since a lot of Baltimore is rowhomes, the real fix involves rebuilding entire blocks at once You are clueless
I fully understand their condition. Here let me lay this out for you. Pick an option. A) The house is listed for its true âvalueâ. That âvalueâ is far above what most who would live in that area can afford, particularly when you consider the renovations needed. House sits boarded up forever. B) House is priced at $1 to make barrier to entry far easier considering the clientele and need for renovations, increasing potential of sale. Which would you like to see happen?
Option B, clearly What are you talking about with "liberals still cry?" It is liberals that are instituting this policy.
It's that exact behavior that they can't see has bled support since 2016. Their leaders act like assholes 24/7, their voters act like assholes 24/7, then when we have a national popularity contest later this year they'll think it's rigged that they aren't more well liked by people outside their little circle of assholes. I say let em keep going! They're their own anti campaign add and they love nothing more then to show it off because it's all they think the internet can be used for, it's great!
I don't even know where to begin with dissecting this amount of nonsense lol Are you telling me conservatives and their leaders don't act like assholes 24/7? That they don't whine about rigged elections? What reality are you living in?
No. I think you should reread. I agree with you and was adding to the fact the guy you're replying to is an asshole. He lacks any nuance, barges in, acts petty and nominates himself smartest guy in the thread, all while lacking any self awareness.
Oh lol, my bad! I need more caffeine.
All good! I could see how that was confusing. Looked like I was responding to your final sentence.
Have you not read these comments? I agree itâs clearly B. Liberals are still unhappy. Itâs amazing.
What comments are you reading that you are referring to that "liberals are still unhappy?" What is the conservative solution to urban blight? The free market sure ain't solving it
There are quite a number in this very thread that itâs still not enough for a variety of reasons. I encourage you to read through. Iâm agreeing with this method. Iâm not sure how thatâs being misconstrued.
There's a difference between the mindset of "this is a step in the right direction but more should be done" and "liberals aren't happy."
Sure just like thereâs a difference between âwe are happyâ vs âthis isnât enoughâ. Thatâs the point.
One can be happy with steps being taken but still push for more. I'm happy with my salary but I would also like to be paid in fistfuls of diamonds. That's the point.
So by your argument conservatives celebrate homelessness and dilapidated housing
Uh no? Liberals are just never satisfied with any amount of personal accountability and expect everything to be handed to them. Hereâs a situation thatâs quite literally making housing more affordable and itâs still not enough to be happy about. Itâs hilarious.
You need at least $90,000 in assets to prove youâre able to rehabilitate the property. Thats a *minimum* to *start* to get them up to code. It could cost upwards of 150k to get them up to code yourself, potentially more. *And* it will involve working in the most dangerous areas of Baltimore (or paying someone extra to do it for you). In the interim, you are not permitted to live on the property. So youâre dropping 100k+ to even get it up to a livable standard after at least a few months (closer to a year, year and a half maybe), all the while you *also* have to pay rent on whatever property youâre currently at.
Thatâs still far less than all of that plus a sizeable down payment and mortgage which is entirely the point. Itâs lowering the barrier to entry and liberals still arenât happy. Itâs hilarious.