As you walk throughout the downtown area of Reno, you can see that there are buildings that are vacant due to owners that do not want to deal with financial constraints or legal issues when it comes to demolition. These property owners might also be sitting on properties for future value, playing long waiting games, whatever the fines, scorn or wrath they may incur.
Some property owners keep abandoned buildings for strategic planning of future developments. Some developers take years and years to build anything for their projects, leaving large pieces of land in limbo. Meanwhile, others build multiple parking lots which are mostly empty all the time.
This affects Reno negatively because it decreases property values, increases crime within these areas, has public health hazards, and gives a general sense of neglect, emptiness and decline that can harm community morale and an entire neighborhood’s potential.
Reno’s diverse landscapes such as the surrounding mountains and the Truckee River give the city uniqueness and charm. However, in downtown, this then gets overshadowed by a large number of vacant and unused or underutilized properties.
To fix this, the city could look into what other areas have done with blighted, vacant and untapped property.
A “blight tax” could be part of the tool box. Last year, Atlanta passed an ordinance which allows municipal court judges to increase property taxes on blighted properties up to 25 times.
In terms of vacancy, currently there’s a California proposal to tax properties that are vacant for more than six months, with a $5-per-square-foot annual tax.
Washington D.C. tackles both issues with varying levels of taxation, with blighted properties taxed at $10 per $100 of assessed value, while vacant properties are taxed at $5 per $100 of assessed value.
In these scenarios, it’s been important to limit exemptions and loopholes to prevent property owners from stalling further or pretending their buildings aren’t vacant or in constant renovation.
Speculators hate these initiatives for good reason, since they are all about future profit, rather than the sustainable, communal present.
It’s also important not to target buildings that are being used but with owners who don’t always have the means to maintain their properties at certain levels.
By getting the affluent property owners to take action on long delayed projects or on buildings they own but aren’t renting out, vacancy and blight taxes help support urban renewal, boost property values, and contribute to creating safer, more vibrant communities. Additional tax revenue can then be used for community improvements further revitalizing neighborhoods.
Ten years ago, the City of Reno said it was approving a plan to fight blight. It said it would pursue criminal charges against property owners, while increasing motel inspections and boosting surveillance against graffiti. City officials encouraged locals to contact Reno Direct to report everything from debris to parking on front yards.
Ten years later, what about focusing more on taxing property owners holding onto decaying and unused buildings, while ending the facilitation of developers who end up building mostly parking lots?
If there was a will, could officials push the legislature to make this happen instead of trying to reduce the independence of planning commissioners?