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

(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,.