> At this point, the property should be razed (roof issues, structural issues, mildew, pests), but that costs money too.
And when this sort of thing gets truly out of control, you end up with Detroit syndrome. A city with a tax base so small it can't even afford to tear down unlivable properties - and consequently can't encourage reconstruction that might expand the tax base.
Hell, Detroit got to the point where serial arson was one of the major ways of cleaning up abandoned properties. I think people underestimate the degree to which this sort of disuse is not just a missed opportunity but an active harm.
So, in the same area I mentioned in my previous post, there have been several arson incidents.
All that remains is the shell of the structure, and the property owner cannot be contacted (some other state/country), the municipality cannot pay for the removal and dumping of the debris, and the EPA considers the property an unauthorized dump/landfill.
Particularly in areas with basements, the basements collect the debris and all the rain and snow, and become, as you say, an "active harm".
The arson seems to have been done to get rid of squatters, drug dealers, and places children might try to go play. So it's lowering the community impact of the building, but doing nothing (or less than nothing) to make actual cleanup or development there possible.
And when this sort of thing gets truly out of control, you end up with Detroit syndrome. A city with a tax base so small it can't even afford to tear down unlivable properties - and consequently can't encourage reconstruction that might expand the tax base.
Hell, Detroit got to the point where serial arson was one of the major ways of cleaning up abandoned properties. I think people underestimate the degree to which this sort of disuse is not just a missed opportunity but an active harm.