In an article on October 17th, the Dayton Daily news brought up a new trend that's risen in the face of our current economic times -- "walkaways." Former owners of foreclosed properties in the Dayton area have simply begun to walk away from their old homes, leaving them to stand abandoned. According to the article, these homes are subject to being broken into and "stripped" of their components (presumably such as copper piping, which numerous television shows assure me can be sold for reasonable money.)
What's more, the city's footing the bill. Boarding up, demolition, and even keeping the lawn trimmed: it's all coming out of Dayton's budget. Combine that with declining property values, and you have a slew of new sores on the face of the city.
This...well, there's no nice way to explain that this is a real shame. Hard times all around, but it's just sad for the people and it's sad for the city. But hey, you didn't come to a blog about the Dayton economy expecting happy news -- and if you did, well, wow, I have a bridge to sell you. Some of the other articles have put a positive spin on things, but that's more because you need a spin of some nature, and it's easier to write 'here's hoping' than 'it's doomed.' Easier to back it up, too.
But you know what? No: let's do this. Positive spin, if you're ready for it. Because the city of Dayton has to pay to have these things maintained and eventually torn down, that's going to mean some amount of business for associated industries! More work!
Okay, so that's not exactly the happiest ending, but it's (once again) at least a very thin silver lining on a smog cloud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read through the article, and I have to agree, that is pretty depressing. It especially sounds ridiculous when houses can be foreclosed on, thus removing the residents, and then have the bank say "well, whoops, guess we can't get what we were hoping, so we're just gonna pass on the whole deal." I bet the residents are pleased to hear that, especially when they then continue to be liable for the house when the banks discharge the loan, and at least according to the article somehow not properly inform the former owners of that fact.
ReplyDelete