Article about the frustration with vacant lots in the city of Phoenix (Tempe: sales)

[Valley Native]

'Bad neighbor': Phoenix struggles to manage its vacant city-owned lots

Interesting read about something that has concerned me for a long time: the numerous vacant land parcels that are eyesores and never become developed. From what I'm reading in the article, there have been attempts to develop many of these vacant lots, only the deals end up nowhere because the city owns these parcels, and the approach is "overly bureaucratic" ... which is really no surprise. Of course, the other factor is NIMBYs who oppose practically any kind of development, and would rather keep properties vacant, ugly, and unproductive.

Another factor which wasn't mentioned very heavily in the article is sprawl. Perhaps if the Phoenix was more condensed & didn't have its city limits sprawling to the edge of the earth, there would be more of a push for these vacant parcels to become developed. As it is, Phoenix is too big area wise, and this has caused the city government to become a huge bureaucracy to the point where the city doesn't even keep track of how much vacant land is owned! Consider how much infill development could occur on many of these vacant lots, especially near or in the central core if the city would willingly turn over these properties to investors with out all the bureaucracy and legal hassles involved.

[Hschlick84]

Like I mentioned in another thread, would the city of Phoenix be better off if it splits from Maricopa county and become its own city and county (Phoenix county)? Do you think this might help it from being a big sprawl and become more urban?

[JGMotorsport64]

I don't think it would help because the city limits of Phoenix proper are so massive and continue to grow.

Tempe is going urban because it's landlocked, Phoenix doesn't need to. Unfortunately.

[JGMotorsport64]

Although community gardens would be an interesting idea.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Hschlick84

Like I mentioned in another thread, would the city of Phoenix be better off if it splits from Maricopa county and become its own city and county (Phoenix county)? Do you think this might help it from being a big sprawl and become more urban?

What does this have to do with how COP runs? Unless your splitting up the city it wouldn't help with this issue at all.

[Zippyman]

Wait a sec, the article clearly states that the city does track the properties it owns, and that the count was off from that calculated by the newspaper because some of the properties are joint-ownership.

The meat of the article suggests that much of the "disputed" property was bought with federal bucks & has to be disposed of properly to comply with the terms of those grants.

I don't really see much of a problem here with the exception of using eminent domain to seize land for a "public purpose" and then letting it sit vacant (that's a big deal & heads should roll for that).

But developers whinging about not being able to buy prime property (purchased with federal funds) near the light rail without bidding for it openly & on the free-market? Nope, not an issue at all for me. I don't think the city should be able to cut deals for any land without openly marketing the property. I'd much rather let the land trickle out than give it away to insiders for pennies on the dollar.

I don't think this is a "sprawl issue" except that sprawl is catching up with people & now the urban core is becoming desirable again - that's a good thing, and there's no rush to give away a scarce asset just because a developer wants to get rich now.

On the management side, I think one thing the city is masterful at is sucking up federal bucks for the city. Using grants to buy land for the benefit of all the city's taxpayers & offset the costs for pet projects like the rail is exactly what they should be doing. My only gripe is that the deals presented to the council often include lots of unnecessary giveaways in the name of "getting someone to take the land" - like the skyscraper-supermarket project floated a couple months ago - i.e., "the land is $25 million bucks, but the buyer doesn't need to pay property taxes for 25 years & any retail sales taxes go to the developer for 50 years", therefore, the developer gets $25 million in incentives to pay his $25 million cost.. (and no one even knows the land is "available" until the deal is done.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

I don't think it would help because the city limits of Phoenix proper are so massive and continue to grow.

Tempe is going urban because it's landlocked, Phoenix doesn't need to. Unfortunately.

Even Tempe has a problem with vacant lots. In the downtown area alone, there are two vacant parcels I know of that could be easily developed. One of which is at the corner of Ash & University ... it has been sitting vacant for at least a decade after the initial plans for a Whole Foods with a midrise condo complex on top were scrapped after the financial situation. There are still plans for a similar development on this property, but nothing is getting done. Another smaller parcel is located right on Mill Avenue at 7th Street where I believe a Long Wongs was located many years ago. It was torn down a while ago, but the land sits vacant and unused.

Originally Posted by Zippyman

I don't really see much of a problem here with the exception of using eminent domain to seize land for a "public purpose" and then letting it sit vacant (that's a big deal & heads should roll for that).

It's a huge problem regardless of what the reasons are for the vacated properties. Vacant lots such as these are eyesores which attract blight, and can bring down property values within the immediate area. Consider how much new infill development could take place on these parcels which would be much more attractive & productive. Consider also how much revenue (property tax) is lost by allowing these lots to sit empty.