The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-08-2021 12:23 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 11:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 10:50 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Norfolk isn’t shrinking. It has built a ton and still has a housing shortage. But keep on using old information. It’s really helpful to the conversation.

The population of Norfolk is shrinking. So as it is building a ton, mostly urban, its suburbs continue to be gutted and more people are moving out than in. And yes, there is a housing shortage, which was my underlying point, there is almost nowhere for a middle income single family to live. Meanwhile, there is an overage of vacant, blight, and very low income housing. Vacancy rates in Norfolk are over 20% higher the state average and over 15% higher than the national average. The housing shortage is in rural and suburban residential.

According to this article from last year, Norfolk’s population has gone up 1% over the last decade. That’s not shrinking. It’s flat. It’s being outpaced by other local cities which is not ideal. But it’s not shrinking.

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-c...story.html

Can you provide your source for the vacancy rate data? Because everything I’ve found doesn’t support your claims.

Sure...

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/virgi...folk-city/

Are you here to exchange ideas to solve a problem or are you arguing there is no problem? Whether the overall population is flat, shrinking, or up 1% (I guess it depends on the source) is immaterial to the suburban issue. If 20,000 people have moved into urban areas and the population is flat, that means 20,000 have moved out of suburban areas. Suburban parcels were subdivided over time to meet a demand of almost 30% greater than the current demand. You have more parcels today to house 240,000 people than in 1970 to house 300,000 people? That number is even more exasperated by the fact that most of the new building and subdivisions are high rise condos so you are sticking more people in smaller parcels meaning the larger parcels taking up more land area are the ones emptying. How do you fix that?

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Norfolk has a population of 248,416. in 2010 the population was 242,803. in 2025, the population is projected to be 249,790.

Vacant housing units represent 9.9% in Norfolk. Vacant housing statewide is 9.3%. Vacant housing in the United States is 11.3%.

Stop.

Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

I think one thing we need to remember here is that while news of a potential arena is the the lightning rod that people are getting excited about, the requirements that the City of Norfolk put out for this bid say nothing about an arena. They request a plan for building offices, residences, incorporating light rail, retail, and ensuring a grid system be put in place to be able to ensure a walkable/bikable space. Nothing about an arena.

If an arena were to be proposed, it would probably be a part of the plan that would be a value-add, and not the central focus of the plan (or at least, will not be advertised that way), and will require multiple cities to help fund most likely.

If I were to guess, I'm imagining that at least one of the competitive submitted bids will be similar to the "Downtown South" project that Raleigh is currently reviewing as a possible way forward.

(01-08-2021 12:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:23 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 11:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 10:50 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Norfolk isn’t shrinking. It has built a ton and still has a housing shortage. But keep on using old information. It’s really helpful to the conversation.

The population of Norfolk is shrinking. So as it is building a ton, mostly urban, its suburbs continue to be gutted and more people are moving out than in. And yes, there is a housing shortage, which was my underlying point, there is almost nowhere for a middle income single family to live. Meanwhile, there is an overage of vacant, blight, and very low income housing. Vacancy rates in Norfolk are over 20% higher the state average and over 15% higher than the national average. The housing shortage is in rural and suburban residential.

According to this article from last year, Norfolk’s population has gone up 1% over the last decade. That’s not shrinking. It’s flat. It’s being outpaced by other local cities which is not ideal. But it’s not shrinking.

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-c...story.html

Can you provide your source for the vacancy rate data? Because everything I’ve found doesn’t support your claims.

Sure...

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/virgi...folk-city/

Are you here to exchange ideas to solve a problem or are you arguing there is no problem? Whether the overall population is flat, shrinking, or up 1% (I guess it depends on the source) is immaterial to the suburban issue. If 20,000 people have moved into urban areas and the population is flat, that means 20,000 have moved out of suburban areas. Suburban parcels were subdivided over time to meet a demand of almost 30% greater than the current demand. You have more parcels today to house 240,000 people than in 1970 to house 300,000 people? That number is even more exasperated by the fact that most of the new building and subdivisions are high rise condos so you are sticking more people in smaller parcels meaning the larger parcels taking up more land area are the ones emptying. How do you fix that?

What's the issue with higher density parcels? Wouldn't those emptying parcels then allow for redevelopment into offices/retail/more housing to drive the economy even more?

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Norfolk has a population of 248,416. in 2010 the population was 242,803. in 2025, the population is projected to be 249,790.

Vacant housing units represent 9.9% in Norfolk. Vacant housing statewide is 9.3%. Vacant housing in the United States is 11.3%.

Stop.

Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

I have no idea where that site gets those numbers but I pay a lot of money per year for demographic data from Site To Do Business.

So you are saying Norfolks population is decreasing bc it was higher 50 years ago?

(01-08-2021 01:05 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:53 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:23 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 11:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 10:50 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  Norfolk isn’t shrinking. It has built a ton and still has a housing shortage. But keep on using old information. It’s really helpful to the conversation.

The population of Norfolk is shrinking. So as it is building a ton, mostly urban, its suburbs continue to be gutted and more people are moving out than in. And yes, there is a housing shortage, which was my underlying point, there is almost nowhere for a middle income single family to live. Meanwhile, there is an overage of vacant, blight, and very low income housing. Vacancy rates in Norfolk are over 20% higher the state average and over 15% higher than the national average. The housing shortage is in rural and suburban residential.

According to this article from last year, Norfolk’s population has gone up 1% over the last decade. That’s not shrinking. It’s flat. It’s being outpaced by other local cities which is not ideal. But it’s not shrinking.

https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-c...story.html

Can you provide your source for the vacancy rate data? Because everything I’ve found doesn’t support your claims.

Sure...

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/virgi...folk-city/

Are you here to exchange ideas to solve a problem or are you arguing there is no problem? Whether the overall population is flat, shrinking, or up 1% (I guess it depends on the source) is immaterial to the suburban issue. If 20,000 people have moved into urban areas and the population is flat, that means 20,000 have moved out of suburban areas. Suburban parcels were subdivided over time to meet a demand of almost 30% greater than the current demand. You have more parcels today to house 240,000 people than in 1970 to house 300,000 people? That number is even more exasperated by the fact that most of the new building and subdivisions are high rise condos so you are sticking more people in smaller parcels meaning the larger parcels taking up more land area are the ones emptying. How do you fix that?

What's the issue with higher density parcels? Wouldn't those emptying parcels then allow for redevelopment into offices/retail/more housing to drive the economy even more?

I'm not suggesting they disallow future subdivisions. I am suggesting putting the land into someone's hands that cares for it and if the demand comes some day for development they can subdivide it again and make money and a lot of it if the demand ever gets back to where it was 50 years ago. Right now, the demand isn't there for this much of the city to be cut up the way it is. These higher density suburbs have been in decay for a long time. What is could work right now is reverse subdivision. Has this been tried anywhere?

Not suggesting we are as bad as Detroit or we convert to agriculture, but it does look like Detroit has gone to a reverse subdivision scheme. One of the farms is 7 acres.

https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justi...riculture/

(01-08-2021 01:12 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Norfolk has a population of 248,416. in 2010 the population was 242,803. in 2025, the population is projected to be 249,790.

Vacant housing units represent 9.9% in Norfolk. Vacant housing statewide is 9.3%. Vacant housing in the United States is 11.3%.

Stop.

Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

I have no idea where that site gets those numbers but I pay a lot of money per year for demographic data from Site To Do Business.

So you are saying Norfolks population is decreasing bc it was higher 50 years ago?

I'm saying the real estate parcel map is cut up for a larger population. There are more parcels than is needed right now. In other words if you had 10 families living in an acre in 1970, on average the lot would be about .1 acres. The problem I see is they are still .1 acre lots and only 5 families live there. So instead of having .5 acres of land doing nothing, why not find a way to give those families .2 acres instead, if they want it and can pay the taxes? Increases their net worth, makes the city and the neighborhood look better, drives out vagrants and criminal activity, etc. Not a unique problem to Norfolk.

(01-08-2021 01:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  What could work right now is reverse subdivision. Has this been tried anywhere?

It’s happening in Colonial Place and most historic neighborhoods. The city code for lot size has increased, leading developers to buy two properties and build one house on that lot.

The biggest issue Norfolk faces (apart from subsidence) is how much of its’ available acreage generates property taxes. I can’t remember the number. But between the naval base, city owned property, public housing, universities and the hospitals, something like 40% of Norfolk generates property taxes. This leads us to the current plan in St Paul’s to knock down and privatize those parcels. This has also led the city to sell their old unused properties to be redeveloped.

(01-08-2021 01:33 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:19 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  What could work right now is reverse subdivision. Has this been tried anywhere?

It’s happening in Colonial Place and most historic neighborhoods. The city code for lot size has increased, leading developers to buy two properties and build one house on that lot.

The biggest issue Norfolk faces (apart from subsidence) is how much of its’ available acreage generates property taxes. I can’t remember the number. But between the naval base, city owned property, public housing, universities and the hospitals, something like 40% of Norfolk generates property taxes. This leads us to the current plan in St Paul’s to knock down and privatize those parcels. This has also led the city to sell their old unused properties to be redeveloped.

Thanks, if the city code for lot size has increased that is definitely a step in the right direction. I wonder how much classified as "city owned property" is actually just vacant lots or abandoned houses. That is what I would start conveying to nearby property owners.

It is interesting that they are planning what could be considered another "town center" at Military Circle. Seems another option could be to simply make it a swanky Homearama style neighborhood with adjacent shopping and restaurants. That would allow for any arena or proposed high density offices or housing to be put where the projects are being demolished in Downtown, or in the parking lot across from Scope where the liquor store was. That would bring more wealthy homeowners and real estate tax revenue back to the city. Would require less subsidy and services and not compete with Downtown or Town Center. But it looks like that isnt being considered.

One thing to remember is elevation, the area that Military Circle is on right now is the highest in the city, and as water rises and the city sinks, this is going to become more and more of an issue. The reason you see it being more of a town center like approach is to ensure that the city has a healthy economic backbone going into the next 50 years.

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Norfolk has a population of 248,416. in 2010 the population was 242,803. in 2025, the population is projected to be 249,790.

Vacant housing units represent 9.9% in Norfolk. Vacant housing statewide is 9.3%. Vacant housing in the United States is 11.3%.

Stop.

Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

(01-08-2021 03:29 PM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Norfolk has a population of 248,416. in 2010 the population was 242,803. in 2025, the population is projected to be 249,790.

Vacant housing units represent 9.9% in Norfolk. Vacant housing statewide is 9.3%. Vacant housing in the United States is 11.3%.

Stop.

Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

Yes, gift the parcels. It's the same thing we are doing now but for the big developers just on a micro scale. You'd let them decay? If someone wants to own a vacant piece of land I am fine with that if they are paying taxes and taking care of it, cutting the grass, etc. In fact, if that was what was happening, there would be little or no problem. I'm talking the city owned blight to convert to tax revenue as opposed to an expense. I am also talking about privately owned condemnable structures and land, especially ones where taxes are delinquent.

(01-07-2021 06:02 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(01-07-2021 05:56 PM)Odubob Wrote:  Thugs, fights, shootings etc drove shoppers out of that area. Will it all now magically disappear? Something to think about.

Are you talking about Lynnhaven Mall?

Daggone you had me rolling! LOL

(01-08-2021 03:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:29 PM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Rental vacancy rate is at 7.14%, US 5.97%, and statewide 5.53%.

In 1970 at its peak it was 307,951. The 2019 population was 242,742... latest numbers according to Wiki. Pretty flat from 2010, but with all the building and urban revitalization, that means a significant portion of the city is still emptying. That is the problem I am trying to address.

It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

Yes, gift the parcels. It's the same thing we are doing now but for the big developers just on a micro scale. You'd let them decay? If someone wants to own a vacant piece of land I am fine with that if they are paying taxes and taking care of it, cutting the grass, etc. In fact, if that was what was happening, there would be little or no problem. I'm talking the city owned blight to convert to tax revenue as opposed to an expense. I am also talking about privately owned condemnable structures and land, especially ones where taxes are delinquent.

We have completely different perspectives on this. Why would someone accept a "gift" of real estate that no one wants to buy, only to force them to take care of it and pay taxes on it?

(01-11-2021 07:37 AM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:29 PM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

Yes, gift the parcels. It's the same thing we are doing now but for the big developers just on a micro scale. You'd let them decay? If someone wants to own a vacant piece of land I am fine with that if they are paying taxes and taking care of it, cutting the grass, etc. In fact, if that was what was happening, there would be little or no problem. I'm talking the city owned blight to convert to tax revenue as opposed to an expense. I am also talking about privately owned condemnable structures and land, especially ones where taxes are delinquent.

We have completely different perspectives on this. Why would someone accept a "gift" of real estate that no one wants to buy, only to force them to take care of it and pay taxes on it?

If someone offers to give me the lot behind me i would take it. Would double my land and increase the value of my house significant as well as my net worth. Only roadblock would be what to do with the structure on the lot. Obviously it needs to be torn down but what is that expense?

Just trying to think outside the box here. Can’t think of a city that has suffered population loss and fully come back from it aside from some spotty gentrification in select neighborhoods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-11-2021 07:37 AM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:29 PM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 12:50 PM)monarx Wrote:  It’s been de-densifying, which outside of downtown is a good thing.

Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

Yes, gift the parcels. It's the same thing we are doing now but for the big developers just on a micro scale. You'd let them decay? If someone wants to own a vacant piece of land I am fine with that if they are paying taxes and taking care of it, cutting the grass, etc. In fact, if that was what was happening, there would be little or no problem. I'm talking the city owned blight to convert to tax revenue as opposed to an expense. I am also talking about privately owned condemnable structures and land, especially ones where taxes are delinquent.

We have completely different perspectives on this. Why would someone accept a "gift" of real estate that no one wants to buy, only to force them to take care of it and pay taxes on it?

Once the blight is removed, the property value would rise and you would have a lot more equity for one. Second, more land for your personal use. Third, more property adjacent to what you currently own that is under your control, so you can cut the grass, keep the rats away etc. Id take free land in a heartbeat as long as it didnt come with huge HOA fees or was far away from where I lived.

(01-11-2021 09:42 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-11-2021 07:37 AM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:45 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 03:29 PM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote:  

(01-08-2021 01:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Yes, but how many of the small subdivided parcels from the 1970 era are still on the map and owned by someone that isn't doing anything with them? Driving through most of Norfolk outside of the urban centers, it seems like a lot. They are just vacant. The population is de-densifying, but the plat map is not. My idea is to sign them over to the people that stayed and continued to maintain their property and pay their taxes. So instead of having a block with 5 small parcels with 3-4 empty or blighted, you have a block with 1-2 larger parcels that someone is taking care of and can make money on some day as the larger neighborhood of blocks become more desirable and people feel like they can build a home without having to worry about getting robbed or their kids safety going outside. In other words, given the same area, shouldn't 100 people have a larger share of land than 150 people? Seems like common sense planning.

Are you suggesting just gifting parcels of land to people for them to take care of because they've been good citizens? I'm sorry but that sounds crazy to me. Someone owns that land, regardless of whether there is a structure on it or not. If these good citizens want to purchase these vacant lots for their fair value, I'm sure the owner would be happy to entertain that transaction, even if the owner is the City. Just giving it away is wrong.

Yes, gift the parcels. It's the same thing we are doing now but for the big developers just on a micro scale. You'd let them decay? If someone wants to own a vacant piece of land I am fine with that if they are paying taxes and taking care of it, cutting the grass, etc. In fact, if that was what was happening, there would be little or no problem. I'm talking the city owned blight to convert to tax revenue as opposed to an expense. I am also talking about privately owned condemnable structures and land, especially ones where taxes are delinquent.

We have completely different perspectives on this. Why would someone accept a "gift" of real estate that no one wants to buy, only to force them to take care of it and pay taxes on it?

Once the blight is removed, the property value would rise and you would have a lot more equity for one. Second, more land for your personal use. Third, more property adjacent to what you currently own that is under your control, so you can cut the grass, keep the rats away etc. Id take free land in a heartbeat as long as it didnt come with huge HOA fees or was far away from where I lived.

Detroit did this and created community gardens where people could grow fresh veggies. Cleaned up hundreds of vacant lots and provided healthy food for lots of low income folks,.