This is a nifty way to do it and might be a solution for Parkridge while the government and market shakes out the slumlords and people who don't mind having their family names sullied by crack houses and prostitute flops they own in the KGIS database.

The idea of this program was simple. Take old houses that were down on their luck, in neighborhoods that were down on their luck, buy them, stabilize the outside so they are no longer eyesores and resell them with what is known as restrictive covenants to people willing to finish the interiors. These are not "grand mansions" although some have been, but rather the everyday houses of the Victorian era, houses in neighborhoods you might not notice a few years ago but today with rising gas costs, long commute times, these once forgotten neighborhoods, close to downtown are experiencing a renaissance.

continued...

One worry about such a program is expense:

Expensive? Not really. The cost of new roof, painting the exterior is often LESS than the cost of demolition. The advantages to the tax base are significant because unlike demolition which leaves a vacant lot which has little property tax value, the finished house often has increased the tax value by 2-3 times. Monies from the sale are usually put right back into the next house. It usually only takes a few of these flip projects in neighborhood before others come in and start buying and restoring. This program and others like it have been responsible for the turn around of many neighborhoods, not only in Indianapolis, but other parts of the country as well.

In Knoxville, it costs thousands of dollars to demolish a house and it is a "when we can get to it" job for the City. Gut and stabilize makes sense, especially when you look at the big picture of shortened commutes, smaller footprints, better aesthetics, and potential for 'greening' older structures. Restrictive covenants should appeal to people who don't like codes enforcement (people who ironically live in covenanted developments where codes are actually less government) as the buy-in is by the new property owner. There should, especially, be a no-rental period of 5-15 years and buy-in prices that are attractive to families but unattractive to speculators.