Restoring the City of Reading

Suggestions to Handle Blight Properties

By: Frankie Lee Graham Jr.

Introduction
In 2004, John Kromer of the Fels Institute of Government from the University of Pennsylvania
wrote Vacancy Inventory and Reinvestment Strategies for Reading, PA. Mr. Kromer found there
were vacant buildings and lots on 425 blocks dispersed throughout the City of Reading. At that
time there were 1,241 buildings (1,088 mostly single-unit homes), and 174 lots (109 mixed-use,
mostly storefront properties with one or more rental upstairs) identified as vacant. In 422 of the
city blocks, vacant buildings were found. Two hundred and thirty two (54.9%) of those blocks had
only one or two vacant lots. Mr. Kromer took notice that the mixed-used buildings in the inventory
were found to need major system repair or replacements. According to the Reading Municipal
Governments Blighted Property Review Committee webpage of February 2, 2015, approximately
1,400 properties were identified as vacant. This shows the need to strongly enforce and modify
current polices, such as the Urban Redevelopment Law of 1945, as amended by Act 94 of 1978,
further amended by Act 113 of 2002, to reflect the current circumstances within the City of
Reading.

Negative Impact of Vacant Properties

In 2011, Jeffery Fraser wrote an article for the business section of the Pittsburgh Quarterly, titled,
The Cost of Blight: Vacant an Abandoned Properties. Mr. Fraser pointed out that vacant
properties reduced market values of homes by 6.5 %, and as much as 20% in neighborhoods with
the most empty buildings and lots. The citizens of Reading most affected by the damage
unoccupied properties imposes on housing values are long-time homeowners. Many of those are
senior citizens; the very citizens who are inclined to hold together what is left of a deteriorating
neighborhood. The effect of unoccupied properties plays a role in unraveling the quality of life in
a neighborhood and darkening the viewpoint of its residents. Nothing indicates abandonment and
disinvestment more than a street scattered with vacant, untidy lots and vacant homes. This
messages does not only reach the neighborhood residents, but the entire City of Reading. This
makes commitment and investment into the city of Reading a difficult task.
A principle commonly discussed when referring to cities similar to Reading is the broken window
theory. This theory states the issues in Reading are no coincidence. In 1982, this theory was
introduced by scientists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. They suggested that a broken
window left broken lead to others windows being broken, thereby sending a message of

indifference. This theory can also be applied to abandoned cars, graffiti, blighted houses and other
noticeable signs of disregard. In an environment similar to that of the City of Reading, the broken
window theory states that community control breaks down, leaving a neighborhood wide open to
crime. In the past, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department in North Carolina examined its
records to see if there was any connection between the citys mortgage crisis and crime rate. The
Police Department found there was a connection, as they saw neighborhoods with large numbers
of foreclosed homes had higher crime rates. Violent crime, in particular, increased gradually for
five years in those neighborhoods, while staying much lower in places where there were much
fewer foreclosed homes.
On the bright side, under the right circumstances, which exist in the City of Reading, vacant and
blight properties can be used to progress the revitalization of neighborhoods. This can be done by
greening vacant properties. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School of
Business, found the values of homes surrounded by empty lots transformed into gardens, parks or
other green amenities raised property values as much as 30%.

Clean & Green

If the vacant lots in the City of Reading cannot be sold, managed by current owners, it should be
the Reading Municipal Governments responsibility to step in and clean up the vacant properties,
with
the
assistance
of
the
organization
such
as
the
Permacultivate
(http://www.permacultivate.org/), and/or other similar organizations. If the City of Reading
(government and people) can work together to clean up the city, the mindset of the people would
change, and more people would be interested in moving into the city. Cleaning up the city,
demonstrates the Reading Municipal Government cares about the city, and is willing to take action
to improve the city.
There are some inconsistent communal attitudes towards city trees and vegetation. On one hand,
immersions in natural surroundings are alleged to stimulate healing and renewal. There are
research findings on the association between city vegetation and crimes, aggressive behavior, and
safety. The science conclusions are not definite and may even seem unreliable or contradictory,
yet certain patterns and associations appear across numerous studies. Among many studies
available, the University of Washington has done a lot of research to show how much a clean and
green environment could change the appearance and mindset of people. Their studies even goes
as deep to show the correlation between a green environment and crime. Below are some quick
facts the university gathered in their Urban Forestry/Urban Greening Research project:
Among minor crimes, there is less graffiti, vandalism, and littering in outdoor spaces with
natural landscapes than in comparable plant-less spaces. (Brunson, L., 1999)
Public housing residents with nearby trees and natural landscapes reported 25% fewer
acts of domestic aggression and violence. (Kuo, F.E., and W.C. Sullivan. 2001)
Public housing buildings with greater amounts of vegetation had 52% fewer total crimes,
48% fewer property crimes, and 56% fewer violent crimes than buildings with low amounts of
vegetation. (Kuo, F.E., and W.C. Sullivan. 2001)

Studies of residential neighborhoods found that property crimes were less frequent when
there were trees in the right-of-way, and more abundant vegetation around a house. (Lorenzo,
A.B., and D. Wims, 2004)
In a study of community policing innovations, there was a 20% overall decrease in calls
to police from the parts of town that received location-specific treatments. Cleaning up vacant lots
was one of the most effective treatment strategies. (Braga, A.A., and B.J. Bond, 2008)
Below are some suggestions to handle vacant properties in the City of Reading. These
suggestions are only tip of the ice berg in working towards a cleaner and greener community.
Vacant Lots:
1. Vacant lots not claimed by the property owner, will be taken by the City of Reading to use
as it wishes to improve the neighborhood. With the assistance of Permacultivate
(http://www.permacultivate.org/), and similar groups, vacant lots will be cleaned of all
trash and debris, and grass will be planted in the entire lot. Placed in the lot will be the
following (depending on spacing): picnic tables, park benches, outdoor grills, and solar
powered lights to keep the area visible during the night.
2. If multiple unclaimed vacant lots can be combined into one large lot, this area could be
transferred into a parking lot to reduce the amount of cars parked on the street, to help the
flow of traffic throughout the City of Reading.
3. Vacant lots that have been claimed by property owners, must show future plans for the
property to the Blight Property Review Committee, and a completion date will be agreed
upon. If future plans for the property are not completed on set completion date, the property
owner must reappear in front of Blight Property Review Committee for review. If the
Blight Property Review Committee sees evidence of the property owner not attempting to
fix, or populate the property, the City of Reading will use its right to fine the property
owner or use of eminent domain, if not too costly to the city.
Vacant Houses:
1. Vacant houses not claimed by the property owners will be taken by the City of Reading to
use as it wishes to improve the neighborhood, pending the decision of the local
neighborhood. The neighborhood will be able to vote to the City Council, and suggest what
should be done with the vacant property.
2. Vacant homes or buildings that have been claimed by property owners, must show future
plans for the property to the Blight Property Review Committee, and a completion date
will be agreed upon. If future plans for the property are not completed on set completion
date, the property owner must reappear in front of Blight Property Review Committee for
review. If the Blight Property Review Committee sees evidence of the property owner not
attempting to fix, or populate the property, the City of Reading will use its right to fine
the property owner or use of eminent domain, if not too costly to the city.

Housing Incentives
In the City of Reading Housing Strategy Act 47 Recovery Plan, and the Fels Institute Report, there
are many suggestions to help the city move in the right direction. The two main incentives of both
documents that can be quickly implemented are: Incentives to Buy and Incentives to Repair. Below
are suggestions to help vacant homes to be sold, and suggestions to motivate property owners to
maintain their properties.
Incentives to Buy:
1. Transfer Tax The property transfer tax which exists in Reading, PA will be lowered to
2% from the current 5% rate. This rate is similar to the surrounding areas of Reading.
2. Property Tax The property purchased will receive a tax break as the following, in
accordance to the tax rate which exists in Reading, PA.

First Year 0% of current tax rate.

Second Year 50% of current tax rate.
Third Year 50% of current tax rate.
Fourth Year 75% of current tax rate.
Fifth Year 100% of current tax rate.

Incentives to Repair:
1. If the property owner would make a repair/re-paint the exterior of the house or building,
they should receive a 5% reduction on their property tax for that year. (This applies for
each property repair/re-painted)
2. If property owner should maintain their property for a quarter (three month period), the top
three to five property owners of each district of Reading should be awarded a $100 gift
certificate, and a bid for the annual tax reduction on property taxes.
3. If property owner should maintain their property all year around, the top three to five
properties owners in each district of Reading should receive a 5% tax break.
Although these suggestions are great, it is hard to put these incentives in front of families if they
do not see the Reading Municipal Government taking steps to ensure the safety and overall welfare
for their families future development. In order for this to take place, the Reading Municipal
Government needs to work with many organizations across the city. It is important for the Reading
Municipal to ensure the Citizens to know they are in existence to serve the interests of the people.

Sources:
Braga, A.A., and B.J. Bond. 2008. Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized
Controlled Trial. Criminology 46, 3:577-607.
Brunson, L. 1999. Resident Appropriation of Defensible Space in Public Housing: Implications
for Safety and Community. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Fraser, Jeffery. 2011. The cost of blight: vacant and abandoned properties. Pittsburgh Quarterly.
http://www.pittsburghquarterly.com/index.php/Region/the-cost-of-blight/All-Pages.html.
(Accessed February 2, 2015).
John Kromer. 2004. Vacancy Inventory and Reinvestment Strategies for Reading, PA. Fels
Institute of Government University of Pennsylvania.
Kuo, F.E., and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does Vegetation
Reduce Crime? Environment and Behavior 33, 3:343-367.
Kuo, F.E., and W.C. Sullivan. 2001. Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Effects of
Environment Via Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33, 4:543-571
Lorenzo, A.B., and D. Wims. 2004. Do Designed Landscapes Deter Crime? Proceedings of the
Florida State Horticultural Society 117:297-300.
Reading Municipal Government. 2015. Blighted Property Review. Reading Municipal Gov.
website. http://www.readingpa.gov/content/blighted-property-review-committee.
(Accessed February 2, 2015).