LETTERS

Cranston must enforce state law on abandoned, neglected property

Posted 9/17/14

To the Editor:

At a recent city council meeting, a discussion regarding a property in such disrepair has become a public safety concern. A resident said he has been fighting with the city for …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
LETTERS

Cranston must enforce state law on abandoned, neglected property

Posted

To the Editor:

At a recent city council meeting, a discussion regarding a property in such disrepair has become a public safety concern. A resident said he has been fighting with the city for nearly a year and nothing has been resolved. The city solicitor stated there was a process set in motion that needs to be completed. Though the solicitor is doing his job, I firmly believe more can be done. By virtue of Rhode Island General Law 44-5.1, the city of Cranston has the authority to impose a non-utilization tax on all vacant and abandoned property. According to testimony given at this council meeting, I consider this property to be vacant and abandoned. This issue touches each and every neighborhood in the city of Cranston. As I walk visiting homes in my run for Ward 2 councilman, I notice nearly every street has one abandoned or vacant property.

The reasons why this law was created was for the following purposes:

44-5.1-1  Purpose. – (a) There are numerous vacant and abandoned properties throughout the cities and towns of Rhode Island.

(b) The existence of vacant and abandoned properties within a city or town contributes to the deterioration of its viable real estate.

(c) Vacant and abandoned properties sometimes place a greater demand on essential city or town services such as police and fire protection than do occupied properties comparably assessed for real estate tax purposes.

(d) The owners of vacant and abandoned properties do not always contribute a fair share of the costs of providing the foregoing essential city or town services financed in part by real estate tax revenues, which revenues are solely based on the assessed value of properties.

(e) Some properties are deliberately left vacant by their owners in the hope that real estate values will increase, thereby enabling the owners to sell these properties at a substantial profit without making any of the required repairs or improvements to the property.

(f) The non-utilization of property whether for profit speculation, tax benefit, or any other purposes is the making use of that property and as such, is a privilege incident to the ownership of the property.

(g) Owners of vacant properties must be encouraged to use the properties in a positive manner to stop the spread of deterioration and to increase the stock of viable real estate within a city or town.

(h) Owners of vacant and abandoned properties must be required, through a city’s or town’s power to tax, to pay a fair share of the cost of providing certain essential city or town services.

Vacant and abandoned properties are not only a safety issue for our police and firefighters, but also a public health issue. They are nesting grounds for rodents. By enforcing this law, the city helps raise the value of our homes and may also create a larger tax base enhancing revenue for the city. I’m quite sure the property owner would fix it or sell it once an additional tax is imposed at the rate of $10 for each $100 of the assessed value.

Thaddeus “Ted”

Jendzejec

Candidate for Cranston City Council,

Ward 2

Comments

2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

  • Wuggly

    As long as the property is maintained and taxes are paid, there should be no extra tax. If you have a boat and don't get it into the water very month should you be penalized? How about a beach house? Granted I doubt there are any in Cranston, but we would consider that unfair.

    What's next if you own a buildable lot and choose just to keep it mowed the City can force you to put a house on it? How about a wooded lot?

    Government should not be telling citizens what to do with their property.

    Thursday, September 18, 2014 Report this

  • tjendzejec

    The letter does in fact state "abandoned" property. If the property is being maintained it would not be considered "abandoned." Government can and should have a say in anything that becomes a "Public Hazard." Your use of a beach house and a wooded lot just doesn't pertain to the article at all.

    Thursday, September 18, 2014 Report this