ILNews

Many efforts arise to address abandoned property, few go forward

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

State Sen. Jim Merritt wanted to help an eastside Indianapolis church gain possession of some long-abandoned, derelict houses, tear them down and establish a neighborhood park.

But it turned out there wasn’t much the law allowed the church to do. When Merritt started investigating, he found few avenues existed for neighbors to proactively improve neighborhoods beset by the intractable problems presented by abandoned and neglected properties.

“No one really knew what to do,” said Merritt, R-Indianapolis.

merritt-jim-15col.jpg Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, stands behind vacant houses on North Grant Avenue near East Washington Street in Indianapolis that nearby Tuxedo Park Baptist Church hoped to acquire and demolish for a park. He’s introduced a bill that could help address abandoned properties. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

That situation gave rise to Merritt’s Senate Bill 433, one of five proposals introduced in the General Assembly this session to address abandoned property. Merritt’s bill is the only one to advance, though, as bills on the topic from both chambers took a variety of approaches.

Merritt’s bill would give counties tools to transfer properties that have languished through tax sales without a buyer to neighbors, nonprofit organization or others who show a capacity for repairing or maintaining a property.

“It really gives tools to communities that have homes that are not wanted,” Merritt said. “We’re just trying to make sure they can do this in a quality way.”

Marion County has an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 vacant houses, Merritt said, and abandoned property is a drain statewide. “I think all 92 counties have situations where this piece of legislation will come into effect and will help,” he said.

Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, has firsthand experience with the difficulties of eyesore properties. Smith is chairman of the nonprofit African American Achievers Inc., which owns the Glen Theater. Volunteers have repeatedly had to tend to an adjacent property that continually is neglected and overgrown with weeds.

Seeing a larger problem, Smith put forth House Bill 1183. Among its provisions, a person who maintains, repairs or cleans up a neighboring abandoned structure after providing notice to the owner may place a lien on the property for the fair market value of the work not exceeding $10,000.

“What happens in a place like Gary is the city doesn’t (maintain properties), a lack of attention is given to properties adjoining yours, and it takes away from the value of your building,” Smith said. “If you’re trying to take care of your property, it kind of hurts to have something next to you that’s abandoned or neglected.”

abandonedSmith’s bill never had a committee hearing, but neither did other bills dealing with abandoned properties. One stalled measure would have allowed units of government to extinguish mortgage liens on certain abandoned property. Another would have created a state lending program for the purchase and renovation of abandoned residences.

Those proposals represent acknowledgement of a problem that Smith believes should lead to the Legislature using a study committee to look into how to deal with abandoned property. “I think we ought to be about the business of looking for answers, and I don’t think we are,” he said.

Eugene Lausch is an informally retired attorney with more than 40 years of experience with the city of Indianapolis. He helped draft code-enforcement statutes in the 1970s when, at the dawn of Unigov, he headed the Division of Code Enforcement in the Department of Metropolitan Development.

“There’s always been this healthy tension between coming up with innovative, cutting-edge ways of dealing with this problem and balancing that against the constitutional constraints on the range of action that can be taken by government,” Lausch said. He said there’s tension, too, between those who argue for demolition of abandoned homes and those who urge preservation of housing stock.

Business also has a stake in how far lawmakers go. Attorney Tom Havens is government affairs director for the Indiana Builders Association, which supports Merritt’s bill. He said the IBA looks at proposals that extend the reach of government into private property on a case-by-case basis.

“The biggest thing we’re concerned about is that the free market still has a chance to purchase these properties first,” Havens said. Merritt’s bill would do that by establishing a public hearing process as a requirement of transferring property.

“Whatever we can do to make areas better is good for us, good for everybody, I think,” Havens said. “The more people you can get involved in this conversation, the better.”

Merritt said there are other proposals he’d like to consider, such as shortening the redemption period in which an owner can reclaim property after a tax sale. Currently, a property owner has a year to pay off a tax sale lien, but Merritt thinks perhaps six months is sufficient.

“I think there are limits on what the best state law can do in this area,” Lausch said. “You can make the argument that abandoned buildings are signs of an unhealthy community, and that there are a range of things communities can be doing and should be doing to make communities healthy, and when that happens, you won’t have an abandoned building problem. It is a real, and difficult, problem.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT