Ripples from an Ugly House
A friend, in response to an article in the LJS, said:
...Is part of being in a neighborhood with others mean they have to conform to the standards of certain people in the group? In the new article the end mentions someone who said,
They said the property owner should be left alone as long as he doesn't bother anyone.Is there danger to the neighborhood if this house is left as it is?
I tried to respond in the forum where this took place, but length limits on responses made a thoughtful, complete response impossible, so I moved it here:
A hundred people, many with reservations about liberty, individuality, and social justice, turned out to demonstrate that the owner is bothering them, so the initial premise of the resident quoted at the end of the article is simply flawed. The owner, by allowing his property to fall into disrepair, dilapidation, and blight, is bothering someone, so now what?
...And that was the main theme of the evening: So now what do we do, not only about this house, but the problem of decaying and dilapidated properties in general?
I can think of a few dangers
the neighborhood faces resulting
from properties like this, causing us to consider the question So now
what?
- There are actual physical dangers like vermin infestation, mold, problems with sight lines on the intersection in question, and attractive nuisance.
- The neighbors across the intersection are trying to sell their house. Are potential buyers more or less likely to purchase their house with the problem house sitting just across the street? What effect will this have on surrounding property values?
- Anyone who has lived in Lincoln for any length of time knows that there's a stigma attached to the north side (north of O), and the core neighborhoods (around downtown, both north and south). Does blighted housing stock aggravate or mitigate this perception?
Blight and the perception of blight drive decreasing economic diversity in Lincoln's core, as more affluent residents — those who can afford it — opt to live in the suburbs or on acreages. This has all sorts of negative consequences, such as continuing decline in the core as it's starved for resources, pressure on critical services to cover an exponentially increasing area (increasing costs and decreasing effectiveness), and increased natural resource consumption.
A lot of hay has been made about things like paint colors, because its easy to point at that by both those calling for change and those saying live and let live. The real issues are more profound.
Comments: 2