We've often talked around this issue when discussing certain parcels, projects or, in many cases, lack of projects on prime land that should have been developed but hasn't. We all have our favorite pieces of empty urban land that we love to hate.

 

Of course, mine is the Jacobs Lot on Cleveland's Public Square. Jacobs Group isn't so much in the development business anymore. It's in the speculation business. Coming in second is Cleveland's Scranton Peninsula, although 22 of its 80 acres are now in the hands of a competent team that seeks to develop it. The rest is owned by chronic speculator Scranton Averell and its predecessors since the 1820s. Scranton Peninsula has been idle for 40+ years.

 

Here's one way to address the speculation and idling of vacant properties for decades....

 

 

Edited March 20, 20196 yr by KJP

I've always wanted to go find a vacant acre of forest in Southeast Ohio and just adverse possession the crap out of it until its mine. 

This parking lot in downtown Cincinnati is the bane of my existence. 

Who owns it?

17 minutes ago, KJP said:

Who owns it?

 

https://www.citybeat.com/news/blog/20853469/joseph-auto-group-faces-boycotts-and-mockery-as-demolition-of-the-dennison-hotel-begins

 

These guys.

Hey, that "Fortune 500 company" is going to build their brand-new headquarters on that lot any day now. 

1 hour ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Hey, that "Fortune 500 company" is going to build their brand-new headquarters on that lot any day now. 

 

We just need to be patient. We've only been waiting for like 35 years. 

I made a lot of money last year selling vacant land.  It was overgrown and I did absolutely nothing to clean it up during the 20~ months I owned it.  I paid like $200 total in property tax, in 20 months. 

6 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

This parking lot in downtown Cincinnati is the bane of my existence. 

But the owner is making a solid return on their investment as a parking lot. As much as I would like to see a 40 story tower there or a 30 story apartment building, does the developer see the reward to offset the risk?

35 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

But the owner is making a solid return on their investment as a parking lot. As much as I would like to see a 40 story tower there or a 30 story apartment building, does the developer see the reward to offset the risk?

 

That's because our tax structure incentives this. A land value tax instead of a property tax would be one way to make this less desirable for the owner. Another way would be to tax surface parking at higher rates like they do in Pittsburgh and Philly. As it stands, we provide tons of disincentives to developing these kinds of lots. 

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

That's because our tax structure incentives this. A land value tax instead of a property tax would be one way to make this less desirable for the owner. Another way would be to tax surface parking at higher rates like they do in Pittsburgh and Philly. As it stands, we provide tons of disincentives to developing these kinds of lots. 

We are all Georgists now. ?

In Cleveland, the clout of the parking lot operators has a lot to do with it.   It's somewhat well known that they had a big role in sabotaging the idea of a Progressive Insurance skyscraper because Peter Lewis insisted that it would contain integral parking.   If they could beat him, I am sure the same has happened with others.   To consolidate lots from surface to garages requires investment and takes the lot which is being redeveloped out of service.