Tax foreclosure offers an opportunity to investigate processes of disinvestment in the city. Prior research has not considered how tax foreclosure administration protects or further damages neighborhoods where foreclosure occurs. Detroit’s loss of households led to disinvestment in housing and demolition of structures. In addition, at each of the three stages of property foreclosure and disposition, implementers took actions that promised to encourage disinvestment in property by facilitating the spread of blight and encouraging negative externalities. This occurred because (1) foreclosures took many owner-occupied properties; (2) the sale of properties to government entities was small and did not promote reuse; and (3) the foreclosure auctions disadvantaged purchasers who would become owner-occupants, channeled properties in strong neighborhoods to investors at low prices, and sold properties disproportionately to destructive buyers.
AlexanderF. S.2000a. “Constitutional Questions About Tax Lien Foreclosures.” Government Finance Review16 (3): 27–31.
2.
AlexanderF. S.2000b. Renewing Public Assets for Community Development. New York: Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
3.
AlexanderF. S.2000c. “Tax Liens, Tax Sales, and Due Process.” Indiana Law Journal75:747–807.
4.
AlexanderF. S.PowellL. A.2011. “Neighborhood Stabilization Strategies for Vacant and Abandoned Properties.” Zoning and Planning Law Report34 (8): 1–10.
BradfordC.1979. “Financing Home Ownership.” Urban Affairs Quarterly14 (3): 313–35.
12.
BrophyP. C.VeyJ. S.2002. Seizing City Assets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
13.
Citizens Research Council of Michigan. 1999. “Delinquent Property Taxes as an Impediment to Development in Michigan.” Report No. 325, Citizens Research Council of Michigan, Farmington Hills.
Detroit Office of Foreclosure Prevention and Response. 2012. Community Stabilization and the Impact of the Foreclosure Crisis in Detroit. Detroit: Detroit Office of Foreclosure Prevention and Response.
24.
Detroit Works Project. 2011. “Neighborhood Analysis and Short-Term Action Strategy.” Detroitworksproject.com.
25.
DewarM. Forthcoming. “Reuse of Abandoned Property in Detroit and Flint.” Journal of Planning Education and Research.
26.
DickersonB.2012. “Wayne’s Bitter Antidote for Abandonment.” Detroit Free Press, February9, A2.
27.
Econsult Consulting and Penn Institute for Urban Research. 2010. “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia.” Prepared for Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Association of Community Development Corporations, Philadelphia, November.
28.
FainsteinS. S.2001. The City Builders. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
29.
GallagherJ.2010. “What Moroun Owns.” Detroit Free Press, April11, 5A.
30.
GalsterG.1987. Homeownership and Neighborhood Reinvestment. Durham: Duke Univ. Press.
31.
GalsterG.2001. “On the Nature of Neighbourhood.” Urban Studies38 (12): 2111–24.
32.
GordonD. L. A.1997. Battery Park City. New York: Routledge.
33.
GrigsbyW.BaratzM.GalsterG.MaclennanD.1987. “The Dynamics of Neighborhood Change and Decline.” Progress in Planning28:1–76.
MallachA.LevyL. M.SchillingJ.2005. “Cleveland at the Crossroads.” Report for National Vacant Properties Campaign, Washington, DC.
56.
MallachA.VeyJ. S.2011. “Recapturing Land for Economic and Fiscal Growth.” Report from Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation, Washington, DC.
SagalynL. B.2001. Times Square Roulette. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
SandsG.SkidmoreM.(Forthcoming). “Making Ends Meet.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
66.
SatyanarayanaM.2012. “Wayne County Auction Aims to Unload 6,000 Homes.” Detroit Free Press, July4, 1A.
67.
ScafidiB. P.SchillM. H.WachterS. M.CulhaneD. P.1998. “An Economic Analysis of Housing Abandonment.” Journal of Housing Economics7:287–303.
68.
School of Public Policy. 1998. Abandoned Commercial Property in Detroit. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan.
69.
SchuetzJ.BeenV.EllenI. G.2008. “Neighborhood Effects of Concentrated Foreclosures.” Journal of Housing Economics17:306–19.
70.
SimonR. D.1978. The City-Building Process. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
71.
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. 2005–2010. “2010 Southeast Michigan Regional Imagery Project” [data file]. www.semcog.org/Aerials.aspx.
72.
StegmanM. A.1972. Housing Investment in the Inner City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73.
SternliebG.BurchellR. W.1973. Residential Abandonment. New Brunswick: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers Univ.
74.
SternliebG.BurchellR. W.HughesJ. W.JamesF. J.1974. “Housing Abandonment in the Urban Core.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners40 (5): 321–32.
75.
TemkinK.RoheW.1996. “Neighborhood Change and Urban Policy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research15:159–70.
76.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1952. Census of Population 1950. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
77.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1962. Census of Housing, 1960. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Wayne County Treasurer’s Office. 2011. List of Properties to Be Offered at Auction, August [data file].
85.
Wayne County Treasurer’s Office. 2012a. List of Properties Sold at Closed-Bid Auction, June [data file].
86.
Wayne County Treasurer’s Office. 2012b. List of Properties to Be Offered at Auction, August [data file].
87.
Wayne County Treasurer’s Office. 2012c. Terms and Conditions of Sale, Tax Foreclosed Property Auction.
88.
WhitakerS.FitzpatrickT. J.IV. 2012. “The Impact of Vacant, Tax-Delinquent, and Foreclosed Property on Sales Prices of Neighboring Homes.” Working Paper 11-23R, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
89.
WhiteM. J.1986. “Property Taxes and Urban Housing Abandonment.” Journal of Urban Economics20:312–30.
90.
WilgorenJ.2002. “Detroit Urban Renewal Without the Renewal.” The New York Times, June7, 10.
