Hey, there! Log in / Register
How Boston sells off small pieces of land
By adamg on Fri, 09/04/2009 - 8:35am
Kevin McCrea raised the issue in Wednesday's debate and today the Globe takes a look at city programs aimed at getting vacant lots back on the tax rolls.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Am I the only one that
Am I the only one that doesn't see a problem with this?
South Boston has several vacant lots that are not owned by the properties next door, but by slum lord owners from wherever and are overgrown trash heaps. At least giving preference and asking for bids from property owners next to these lots generates the side effect of cleaning them up.
Many, if not most, are also unbuildable as single lots. Letting a property owner absorb it into their land allows it to be built on.
Also, even if sold low, the assessment for tax purposes is still closer to the original amount, right?
Most yes, some no
Most are probably fine - if you help an owner buy a 10x60 strip next to his house - that may be a good thing - but the city should insist on a reasonable price (eg - how much value would the extra land add to his current property value - and if you give 10 or 20% off - no harm no foul).
What's more troubling is the city selling land for 10 cents on the dollar - especially to connected people. Keep in mind that vacant land is typically assessed at a fraction of its actual value (so you don't encourage people to slap any old thing on there just to generate some revenue to pay the taxes). Vacant land assessed at $50k will often sell for a substantial multiple of that.
The Rourke case is particularly troubling. Selling off a quarter acre flat buildable lot for $5k to a connected city/state worker in a city that is chronically short of housing is extremely questionable.
non-buildable lots
This happened in my neighborhood. The city sold a piece of land for $4000 to a connected landlord. He then hired a very connected lawyer who paid off a guy on the zoning commission to get the lot zoned for a condo development.
The guy will make a kajillion dollar profit on the project, he will pay off part of it to his sleazy lawyer who pays another part to the sleazy zoning board. The funny thing is its all legal.
no kidding
our lower Fort Hill neighborhood has seen a ton of this. on one hand it's great to get rid of abandoned and littered empty lots on the other hand it would be great to give homeowners the ability to bid on adjacent unused lots that could be converted to yard/parking space.
quick cash?
This sounds like it was not only beneficial to the city but first time homeowners, existing homeowners and people looking for low income options.
The vacant lot mentioned by McCrea
which was sold for a fraction of it's value, is not as blighted or terrible as the mayor claims:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&g...
It's actually two buildable lots at the end of a residential street.
If that address is correct,
If that address is correct, it's the end lot where Hyde Park ave dead-ends into the old Stop&Shop warehouse property. Nothing wrong with getting it back on the tax rolls, but giving it away to a connected guy is the Mumbles Way.
http://gis.cityofboston.gov/EGISWebViewer/Map.aspx...
That lot is absolutely buildable by right
it has enough frontage and is 10,000 freaking square feet. Preserving it as "open space" is not a benefit to the city. Selling it to someone to build a home and get it on the tax rolls for real would have been a benefit. It could have been split, built up as two homes and taxed at over 500,000...but instead it will stay as Jay Rourke's personal "open space" and it will only be assessed at 95,000.
Jay's emplyoer, the BRA, needs to go and so does their puppeteer - the mayor...
I give up: Where is "lower Fort Hill?"
I give up: Where is "lower Fort Hill?"
I think this is where we're supposed to tell you
to go back to New York
Help a fella out nicely, please; where is lower Fort Hill?
eeka,
Be nice. I asked politely, and you were unnecessarily snarky in reply.
Googling "lower fort hill" roxbury yields my post and nothing else helpful. "lower fort hill" boston yields only my posts plus some "lower Fort Hill" from the Barnstable Patriot in Eastham.
You have no idea how long I've lived here, and, frankly, a long-time Southie resident might be hard pressed to locate Fort Hill, let alone lower Fort Hill.
Would you have been similarly unpleasant had I asked where Fountain Hill was?
Must all the 'inauthentic' Boston posters (lets say, resident for fewer than...what?...30 years?) obtain, study, and memorize Max Harless's excellent map to be admitted among the cognoscenti?
Jonas