Beware The Vacancy Tax!

abandoned home   Beware when government finds itself in need of revenue due to a tendency to over spend, that is when desperate and creative new forms of taxation will be dreamt  up.  To see this, to be true, we need only look at the new legislation that was passed  unanimously by the New Castle County Council last Tuesday. The legislation will create a vacant properties register for all properties, both residential and commercial.

The registry will be used to track the length of time a property is left vacant, and of course this is so that “FINES” can be levied. Of course fines is just another word for taxes in this case.

There are somewhere around 18,000 vacant properties in New Castle county. Let me just say here, that if they know the approximate number, why do they need the registry? Why to levy the fines of course.

Most of these vacant properties are for sale or rent, but some are in the process of foreclosure, others are simply not in use. These homes are being labeled “eye sore” in order to justify this new tax.

The legislation was sponsored by, Councilman David Tackett in reaction to the cost connected with the county’s interaction with these vacant properties. That cost is due to code enforcement for such things as unkempt grass, broken windows and other issues that violate current county code. It seems as though the county will come in and cut the grass, or otherwise make repairs or corrections to the properties, and then are unable in many cases to be reimbursed for the cost.

Sounds crazy right? Wait, a little later I will demonstrate that it is neither crazy, or unique to New Castle County.

The legislation will require property owners to register their property after one hundred days of it being vacant, fines will begin at $100 for properties vacant for between one and two years, and going as high as $5,000 for properties vacant for more than ten years.  Special consideration may be given to owners who can prove that they are actively attempting to sell the property, or that they are making improvements.

What this boils down to is, if for any reason an owner has a vacant property, then the county will pile on top of the property tax already being paid, another tax simply because there is no one using the property.

So if I own a property, and I simply get tired of dealing with renters, but don’t want to sell the property, I would be forced to pay this tax, or have a lien placed on the property, and possibly lose the land to the county. Remember, this is not a nuisance property tax, this is a vacancy tax.

This is big government gone mad. First of all, why is it the county’s business how I choose to keep my grass? Why should there be a law about the height of my grass? Maybe the problem is not whether or not I cut my grass, maybe the problem is that government has no business telling me I have to. And if I don’t cut my grass, why should government think it has the right to send a contractor to trespass on my land to cut my grass and then bill me?

The other issue with this legislation is that the county has already admitted that it has a bad record of being able to collect on the charges for services rendered to correct the violations. So why should we think they will be anymore successful in collecting the fines? Unless, the real goal here is to be able to put the lien on the property and then confiscate the property.

Now I mentioned above that this was not a unique New Castle issue. It just so happens that I was at the first Sussex County Council meeting of the year on January the 6th, 2015. And at this meeting Sussex Constable Michael Costello gave a report, a large portion of the report was dedicated to explaining how Sussex has had a bad record of collecting on charges for services rendered to correct violations. Sound familiar?

Mr. Costello gave several examples of services rendered, the first was of the demolition of a trailer located within a mobile home park. The owner of the trailer had abandoned the trailer and it had been condemned, Mr. Costello explained that while the park owner had paid the larger share, that Sussex County had also paid a portion. Why?

Mr. Costello made it clear that Sussex County is having the same problems as New Castle, in that Sussex is paying the fee for cutting people’s grass, in some case year after year. The county is paying to correct violations that actually fall under the regulation of a development’s home owners association’s (HOA) jurisdiction. In one case Mr. Costello tried to justify this by saying that the HOA regulations say that the grass can only be six inches, and if the grass is twelve inches, then it is the county’s responsibility. Really? Didn’t it have to be six before it could be twelve? And in case after case the charges for these services were not collected. In fact there was not even an attempt to collect.

Here is a link to the audio of Mr. Costello’s report, if the first thirty minutes of this doesn’t make your head explode, then you are either dead, or you just aren’t paying attention.

010615.2.MP3

So, if New Castle County has decided the way to solve the very problem they have created with regulations, and the fact that they can’t collect on the fines they were already assessing, how long will it be before this sickness spreads down state?

The answer is not more legislation creating more regulations, the answer is certainly not to add another property tax on top of the current property tax. Maybe, just maybe, the answer is for government to get out of the regulation for revenue business.

19 Comments on "Beware The Vacancy Tax!"

  1. Pat Fish says:

    I’d point a few observations here, Frank. How high the grass grows is a subjective matter, as you argue.

    BUT….if you’ve ever lived near somebody who doesn’t cut their grass you will know angst. Long grass allows snakes and critters to roam about, not to mention the ugliness of it. Because of this negligent neighbor, for example, the value of my house might well drop.

    It’s a real problem but you’re right, we do NOT need more laws and regulations. This vacancy tax law proposal is just absurd.

    Too often it’s the local government forced to deal with this as who would I call about my neighbor of the 6 feet grass and deterioriating exterior?

    There’s got to be a better way than a silly vacancy tax.

  2. Rick says:

    First of all, why is it the county’s business how I choose to keep my grass? Why should there be a law about the height of my grass?

    If you have rural property, it doesn’t really matter. But in a town or development, perennially unkept lawns look like crap, provide a haven for rodents and thus, could lower neighboring property values.

    Sussex has had grass height limits for years.

    Generally, houses that go “unused” for years become delapidated and eventually become an eyesore, are used by the homeless and drug addicts, are fire hazards and harbor rodents. To me, if a property is “unused” but kept up- solid roof, no broken windows, cut grass- then there’s no problem.

  3. Frank Knotts says:

    First of all Pat, this now law in New Castle County. Second of all, snakes and rodents run rampant in cities where there is no grass at all.
    I see this as a property rights issue. And I know that some will say something that impacts their property value impacts their property rights.
    This is really no different than the NIMBYs who fought the chicken plant in Millsboro.
    Once we give over concent to allow the government the power to do this to our neighbors, we have given concent to do it to ourselves.
    Rick, even if I were to agree with the need, which I dont, why should the county be involved with demolition of a mobile home within a privately owned park? Or where there is already an established HOA covenant?

  4. Rick says:

    And I know that some will say something that impacts their property value impacts their property rights.

    And they would be correct. Which is why nobody wants a dilapidated, windowless, boarded-up house with with an unkept lawn next door to their property.

    I just don’t see a controversy here.

  5. Dave says:

    ” if they know the approximate number, why do they need the registry?”
    Because of the word “approximate” which in this case is what we would call a WAG (Wild Ass Guess”

    “Most of these vacant properties are for sale or rent”
    Perhaps the county would appreciate it if you could provide them with your database of what is for sale or rent since you think most are.

    “These homes are being labeled “eye sore” in order to justify this new tax.”
    Well if your photo is any indication, yes it’s and “eye sore.”

    “First of all, why is it the county’s business how I choose to keep my grass?”
    Because you private property rights are constrained when you affect my private property values. And generally when you live in a community you incur some societal obligation to live in harmony with your neighbors. It’s kinda what it means to live in civilization. And really, if you lived in a place where there were no people for a hundred miles, do you think that anyone would give a damn how you kept your lawn? But you don’t. You live with other people. You are part of a pack that bands together in your and the rest of the pack’s interest. Don’t want to be part of a pack? No problem. But don’t claim the benefits of a pack without contributing to the pack.

  6. Dave says:

    “The county is paying to correct violations that actually fall under the regulation of a development’s home owners association’s (HOA) jurisdiction.”

    But this part of it is indeed wrong. If the HOA has jurisdiction (and force of law IAW Chapter 81 of the DE Code), then the county should butt out and tell the HOA to handle it’s own affairs. It’s sort like living in a place like Deerwood Park and expecting the state to fill pot holes on those private roads.

  7. Frank Knotts says:

    Rick you are only thinking of towns and cities. This covers all properties in the county. So if a farmer has a property with an old farm house on it, should he be forced to pay the additional tax?
    Dave, at what point does your concern for you property value infringe upon my rights to live as I choose? You see there is a reason there are property lines, physical lines, not imaginary line about how you feel.
    I actually have an old home directly across from my home that is falling in upon itself, and I could care less.
    Let me expand on my question I asked Rick, if there is a barn or a silo that is no longer in use, should the owner pay the tax?

  8. Dave says:

    When your use of the property (or lack thereof) causes the value of my property to decrease from it’s initial value as a result of your use. The important parameter is the initial condition. If I buy next to a run down “eye sore.” I have with knowledge and full intent made that decision. So no beef.

    If you allow your property to transition to a condition that harms me either financial or physically (as an extreme example – dumping toxic wastes on your property) that physically affects my property or my use of my property, then sorry, your rights are constrained.

    As to the barn or silo, the way I read the ordinance (yep, read the whole thing), it could apply to a silo or barn, but it’s questionable. Still, the ordinance can be modified to ensure that it does not apply to structures for which the council did not intend. Of course this is not new since Arden, Camden, Dover, Elsmere, Harrington, New Castle, Smyrna and Wilmington all have vacant property registration and it is proposed for Milton. So barn door, horses.

  9. mouse says:

    Anecdotally, most abandoned house I have seen are owned by slum lords. I see these people as parasites

  10. Fred says:

    I have two words for this ANTI-VAXXERS and one word for what happens – DEBAUCLE

    The ANTI-VAXXERS want to do what they want too – now they are responsible for 100 people being exposed to measles….and if a baby dies they are responsible for that too – and people who cant work because they are quarantined with the children

    But hey, its their life! right Frank?? – -I want to drive drunk too Frank = who cares?? my rights my car!

    and my vacant house catches fire because homeless people are living in it and I didn’t take care of it and now the neighbors house is damaged – well its MY PROPERTY!!

    Let me refer you BACK to the Bible – yes Frank we are all our brothers keepers!!

  11. Rick says:

    Rick you are only thinking of towns and cities. This covers all properties in the county. So if a farmer has a property with an old farm house on it, should he be forced to pay the additional tax?

    No. There should be limitations concerning acreage, setback from road, housing density and so forth.

    Remember, in my first post I said;

    If you have rural property, it doesn’t really matter.

  12. jack says:

    Well, Pat Fish you moved to rural sussex. The land of farms and chicken sh*t. Well I like it!! 90% of the things you post is some form of complaint about Sussex! Complain about grass funny thing is the USDA will even pay land owners to grow grass tall under GRP. What!! The audacity of the US government to do such a thing. It protects wild life.. Well I don’t give two squirts of owl sh*t about your property value, as far as I’m concerned its complaining people like you that ruin Sussex a little at a time!! Stop complaining !! Move RIGHT out of Delaware!! It’s my land, and it’s my business!

  13. Frank Knotts says:

    But Rick, we are talking about an actual law that has been passed county wide in New Castle. One that could be passed in Sussex.

  14. Mike Protack says:

    New Castle County County, a group of thieves, liars and morons led by a complete idiot. The biggest liar who is supported by the GOP is Janet Kilpatrick.

  15. Rick says:

    But Rick, we are talking about an actual law that has been passed county wide in New Castle. One that could be passed in Sussex.

    I don’t really care what laws they pass in SOSNCC. Up there, they worship at the alter of the Almighty State. Any law or regulation that facilitates government expansion and intrusion fits in with their political creed. That’s why they always vote for the Socialist-Democrat statists.

    I see very little chance of such a law being passed in Sussex- that is, until the Socialist-Democrats take control, which is probably a few decades away.

  16. mouse says:

    There’s even tax breaks for unrented commercial properties that can be an eyesore as well. The wealthy should not be able to shit on everyone else to build their wealth. Same with polluters.

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    Mouse you’ll be happy to know that those commercial properties will be subject to this tax as well, at least that’s my understanding.

  18. mouse says:

    Well good, I think. There’s a small strip mall at Peddlers Village owned by a bunch of lawyers who charge so much rent they can never keep the stores occupied. Then they get a tax break for not renting run down trashy businesses. Trashy places attract trashy people. When wealthy people who serve to do nothing but extract wealth from the landscape for themselves are allowed to reign at will, they destroy the appearance and property value of everything around them in my experience.I’m all for business and rentals but not if they lower my property value and quality of life to make the rich richer. They become parasites at that point in my view..

  19. Rick says:

    Mouse, you’ve lost it on this one.

    What’s “trashy” about the liquor store? The cigarette store? The restaurant? The general store? Peddlar’s Village is convenient, and seems pretty busy to me. And all types of people shop there.

Got something to say? Go for it!