Oregon probably has the friendliest laws of any US state to "small" entrepreneurs (licensing fees and residency requirements).

Places like Florida and West Virginia are more "big-money" oriented.

They are called condominiums.

Personal anecdote:

I know of a retired magistrate judge that acquired over 30 residential properties via tax-delinquency sales.

These properties, not in the best condition, were used as Section 8 HUD housing, with no improvements made.

Tactics included keeping the utilities in the landlord's name to be able to shut-off water, electric, or gas at a moment's notice.

Many of the tenants were former defendants with the magistrate court that the judge oversaw.

Additionally, barter was used in lieu of security deposits and partial rent payments - the tenant could fix-up the property.

However, the tenants lacked any ability to properly repair anything, and the repairs caused further damage to the properties.

The wife of the landlord, insisted he divest himself of these properties before his death, so she would not have to continue to deal with this.

However, he did die, she inherited the properties, and is too old to have the energy to deal with this.

As you said, "too old or bothered to do it themselves".

Some of these properties now sit unoccupied, but cannot pass inspection because of the substandard repairs, and further disintegrate.

I know of one particular property that was not winterized (unoccupied), and I am certain the pipes have frozen and cracked.

At this point, the property should be razed (roof issues, structural issues, mildew, pests), but that costs money too.

Some more incoming personal anecdotes from California

I briefly rented a small single family home from an 85 yo woman (managed by her son who lived a few towns away). We quickly found out there was black mold everywhere from a bad leak in the garage and a small one in the kitchen, and that she smoked her whole life in the place. She had no interest in keeping it up, she just "wanted to rent it out." Her son had no interest in dealing with it either as he readily admitted to us. I don't think he had seen the place in a long, long time considering the state of the damage.

We ended up recouping our costs and moving after a few days. She bought it for $150k 20 years ago, pays $600/year in property taxes so there's no incentive for her to give it up (prop 13). It's valued at $500k and was renting for $2500/mo.

Our new place is owned by chinese investors, and also has issues which they aren't interested in fixing. They haven't responded to a single email (I think they are in their early 20s, live in china, and i'm not entirely sure they speak english), we also tried to go thru the property manager who said he won't fix stuff since the landlords are unresponsive. We gave both of them 30 days notice that we need about $500 worth of things fixed. We never heard back, so we did the repairs and just deducted it from the rent, as you're legally allowed to do... come to thing of it, I could propbably not pay rent and squat the place and I'm sure they couldn't give less of a shit.

Property tax in California is at least 1% (typically a bit higher due to various local fees, but let's say 1% for this example).

That means if she bought the property 20 years ago for $150K, the property tax in year one was 1% of 150K, or $1500.

Under Prop 13 property taxes go up 2% ever year (compounded). So after 20 years that property tax would be up to roughly $2400.

The assessed value is $61k, the estimated value (according to zillow) is $480k. Property taxes in 2016 were $640. There is a law where 55+ can transfer valuations if they move within counties that participate. https://www.ocgov.com/gov/assessor/programs/55plus#2179

That's still pretty insignificant, isn't it?

You can probably create a separate bank account, put your rent in there on a monthly basis, and if/when they ask for rent, you have the good-faith evidence, and be legally protected. IANAL.

That's exactly what I would do.

> 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.

The serial arson isn't really a solution, either.

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".

Yeah, this is a good point.

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.