For years, National Auto — located at the intersection of North Wood and West Main streets — has remained vacant at a premier space in downtown Lansda
As noted in my prior musing, I am dedicated to seeing Lansdale develop new policy that will enhance our downtown business areas while holding commercial property owners accountable to being active stewards of their buildings and our community. In this piece, I am going to explore, in more detail, some of the headwinds that are brought forward when this idea is discussed publicly.
The first, as always, is can this be legal? The answer, undeniably and emphatically, yes vacancy registration and vacancy fees are a legal maneuver that local governments can take to hold commercial property owners to a higher standard while ensuring all vacant property is accounted for. To prove this, I wanted to find a community that was directly comparable to Lansdale.
In the past, I have discussed Allentown, Philadelphia, and other larger cities that have taken this approach to commercial (and residential, though that is not my intent here) vacancy concerns. However, I thought something closer to home might be more persuasive. So, let’s talk about Pottstown.
In Pottstown, they have instituted a very similar system to one that I am hoping we can achieve. They choose to define vacant as:
“Commercial units where no person or legal entity conducts a lawfully licensed business on a permanent basis. For the purposes of this chapter, rebuttable evidence of a vacancy is considered any condition that on its own, or in combination with other conditions, would lead a reasonable person to objectively believe the property is vacant. Such conditions may include, but are not be limited to, lack of activity on the site; low or no utility usage; accumulation of mail; lack of furniture, equipment or machinery; lack of window coverings; open accessibility; deferred maintenance or deteriorating buildings and structures; overgrown or dead vegetation; dumped refuse or rubbish; nuisances; boarded windows or doors; statements by neighbors, passersby, delivery agents or government agents; and/or use of the unit primarily for storage of products or materials.”
I feel this definition is extremely sound. It allows for clarity on what a vacant property is defined as while also dealing with the reality that simply putting a name on a lease does not make it occupied. If a building appears vacant to the average person and is then proven to be void of actual habitation on a regular basis, it is classified as vacant and subject to the vacancy rules.
Furthermore, it then goes on to define security that is necessary for a vacant property, the registration and fee that is applicable for that property based on its size, and any potential waivers based on renovations or improvements that might be undertaken by the property owner.
In my opinion, this is a comprehensive approach to helping solve vacant commercial property without infringing on anyone’s property rights, without changing the zoning codes, and requires the property owner to at least submit paperwork about the property once a year prompting discussion and, hopefully, partnership.
So, is this legal, yes, it is.
The second common discussion point I hear is that this is just another way to “tax” commercial property owners and that commercial property owners should have the choice to leave a building vacant if they want.
To be clear, a tax is mandatory monetary investment in the community regardless of situation or context. In this instance, a registration fee or fine is not mandatory for all commercial property owners. Only those who have properties that meet the definition of “vacant” would be required to pay anything, thusly, making it not a tax.
As far as the choice to leave something vacant, that still exists. They do not have to fill their property with a tenant. They can choose to leave it empty. That choice happens, if this is passed, to come with a fee associated with it. It is no different than every person in the borough having the choice to not mow their lawns ever. Each resident can make that choice if they want. However, that choice will come with a visit from our Code Department and a fine for violating the borough code related to “excessive vegetation” (which was adopted back in 1972, and for those curious, the max height of grass is six inches according to the Borough Code)
No one is taking away anyone’s choice. We would be establishing community standards for commercial property that make it clear that leaving a building vacant for an extended period is not desirable for our community and our expectation is that commercial property will be filled in a timely manner.
Finally, the incorporation of the fee is critical. Residents and taxpayers have already borne the burden of creating a positive commercial environment. As noted in my prior musing, tax dollars have been invested in several ways to enhance the economic development of Lansdale. What remains are vacant properties that, seemingly regardless of economic conditions, remain empty. This begs the question of should taxpayers have to invest more of their money to help solve a problem created, and entirely controlled by, a commercial landowner?
I do not think this burden should fall on the tax community at large. The property owners should be either solving their vacancy issue outright by filling their property with a quality tenet or by investing more money in our community via a fee or fine to help support business efforts more broadly in our community to help overcome the shadow of their vacancy.
Each year as we get into the fall, we inevitably discuss taxes and what ways we can enhance our borough without raising tax burdens on our community members. This is one way of adding needed funds to support economic development and growth without increasing taxes more broadly. Why not require the root cause of the problem (vacant buildings) to also help fix it?
In the final installation of this series, I will propose a version of a vacancy ordinance for council to consider in the coming months.
