Here in St. Paul, MN, there is a law that might have some application

[MineralMan]

in dealing with vacant foreclosed homes where no effort is being made to sell the property. In the ordinance, a structure that has been vacant for more than 60 days can be declared an official "Vacant Building." A sign is posted on the door of the building prohibiting entry. The house then has 90 days to be brought up to code and either occupied or be in an active process to try to sell it. After 90 days, the city can demolish the structure, with the cost of that becoming a lien on the property.

Many lender-owned homes in some neighborhoods here are really of no interest to the lender. They have almost zero value because they've been stripped of their plumbing and are otherwise in unsalable condition. So, the lender simply makes no attempt to do anything at all with the home. It's not for sale. It's not being maintained in any way. It just sits there empty.

I'm not sure what the lender's plan is, frankly. I suspect that they're simply writing the thing off as a bad loan, then not giving it another thought. I suspect, from the number of new "Vacant Building" notices I'm seeing around town, that Saint Paul is in the process of planning to demolish a bunch of abandoned, vacant homes. Frankly, it would be a better idea than letting them continue to deteriorate, in my opinion.

[ejpoeta]

1. Buffalo has a big problem with vacant homes. They are dangerous.

They have rats and are unsafe with possibility of falling debris or falling down frankly. Trouble is that it costs money to demolish homes. They demolish a certain number every year, but there are a lot. The local news does stories all the time about where the vacant homes are being demolished and where they aren't. Poorer neighborhoods seem to get ignored, you know how it is. Not sure how they decide which ones to demolish. But they probably have a similar system as you describe for demolishing the vacant buildings. It's a shame too because if they would have been kept up they would have been nice homes with a lot of architectural uniqueness.

[MineralMan]

2. Yes, the cost is a real problem.

It is offset, though, in many cases by the cost incurred when not demolishing such a building leads to a fire, or criminal activity in the building that endangers the community. And you're right - an abandoned home in a quiet neighborhood is more likely to be demolished than in a poor one. That's because people demand that it happen.

It's a terrible problem right now, and leads to further abandoned buildings, as property values sink and more people in those neighborhoods go underwater with their properties.

I discovered that the poverty-stricken neighborhood in North Minneapolis where the tornado did so much damage has an interesting statistic. 77% of the homes in that neighborhood are owner-occupied. That's a much higher percentage than I expected. People own homes there, and live in the homes they own.