In can’t satisfy temporary amenities. People begin


our research, we came across many ideas that support the reasoning behind
demolishing vacant lots. Many of the research discussed financial reasons and
it goes all the way down to simple cosmetic reasons. Researchers,
like Daniel Indiviglio (2011) from The
Atlantic, states various reasons regarding the demolishing of vacant homes.
The main point he addresses is the fact that less supply helps stabilize the
market, building the economy.  According
to his own research, older houses that are foreclosed often can’t satisfy
temporary amenities. People begin to expect a certain standard of living, and
after a certain point it becomes more expensive to update then to just demolish
the house and build a new one. The new construction often appeals to the young
and middle-aged professional, which is appealing for a growing economy. (1)  Research conducted by Brandy Dennis (2011) states that
more tax dollars will be used to maintain these properties then to demolish.
These costs to keep these vacant properties include property taxes, upkeep,
marketing, brokerage fees, and it continues. Indiviglio
also makes this point in saying that the banks will not have to pay for ongoing
maintenance and taxes if demolishing takes place.  Stephen
Gandel’s (2011) work also follows this same thought. He stated in his article
that a lot of the banks that own these vacant homes donate them back to the
cities to be used as needed.
A research study done by the Office of
Policy Development and Research (PD&R) and U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development proves in many points why vacant homes are bad for a
community. One point that was brought up in their research was If a vacant is near
a house for sale it could actually decrease the value of the property by 0.9%-
8.7%, which is bad for the housing market.  Cui (2010) did a study of Pittsburgh
that showed after a property became vacant, the rate of violent crimes within
250 feet of the property went up 15% higher, and that the longer period it was
vacant the greater effect there was on crime rates. Kelling and Wilson (1982) gave popularity to a new
theory called “The Broken Windows Theory”, which was a theory that if a house
looked vacant, meaning it had boarded windows, unkempt lawns, or other various
problems, that it would attract criminals, drugs, and the homeless. The
ethical debate that people face is that whether we should demolish homes with
such a high homeless rate. The problem with this is
addressed in the research from PD&R, the homeless community is unable to
provide financial support to keep a property in good livable condition.
Meaning, if the community attempts to save a house and turn it into a shelter,
the financial responsibility would have to come from the community itself or
the government.