The limits to market-based strategies for addressing land abandonment in shrinking American cities

Land abandonment is one of the most challenging planning problems facing shrinking cities in the United States. Most abandoned urban land finds its way into the tax foreclosure process wherein the city or county places a lien on the property and then eventually takes possession. Many American state laws encourage (or demand) cities to then sell these properties, often for as little as several hundred dollars. The process tempts speculative investors to enter the scene, and their often "predatory" acquisition patterns complicate city planning and redevelopment efforts. In response, activists have proposed the reform of tax foreclosure laws to allow municipalities and planners greater strategic latitude with abandoned properties. They propose enhancing cities' abilities to demolish or refurbish properties, and even to remove parcels from the market. These efforts have been somewhat successful, but have generated a backlash from market-oriented think tanks and business interests reluctant to see governmental planning powers enhanced. This paper examines the emergence of land abandonment reforms and the powerful opposition that has hindered change. Eight cities were selected and placed into three categories based on their current land abandonment policies: consciously managerial (Cleveland, Flint, Saint Louis); limited managerial (Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Rochester); and market-only (Detroit, Gary). Two particularly striking findings arise from this analysis. First, in addition to inhibiting systematic planning efforts in cities, market-only policies appear, ironically, to be associated with the erosion of market conditions. Second, the market importance of government intervention-whether in the form of rent vouchers or sensible land management-often does not receive sufficient attention in cities experiencing abandonment. Most tend to continue market-oriented strategies which complicate planning efforts to re-purpose land in socially beneficial ways. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.