problematic properties are problematic properties... you can identify them by driving by.
these certainly appear to be problematic properties, you agree?
they are evidently in some form of distress.
Are they landlord owned properties?
No clue, but if people are living in them, well don't you think their condition mandates a code enforcement inspection to assure they are safe for habitation or should we just focus on slum lord properties?
Are they owned by slumlords? I don't know, nor do I care. The condition of these properties need to be addressed.
Consequences of such properties devalue others in the area, make the area less desirable for families or persons interested in renting.
Then the city spends north of $60,000 in a property and it turns out looking like the picture below?
So let's divert our focus to slap someone with a label of financial dead beat or slumlord, it solves no problem.
Fix the problem, deal with the property. No one wants to live in the homes pictured above, do you?
The title Slumlord fits no purpose other than to in one broad brush paint an investor as evil. Not everyone can purchase a property, not every one wants to purchase a property. Some prefer to rent.
If your disdane is someone being a slumlord, ask questions of Jr on how the property below has sat like this for 4 to 5 years...
This property is owned by the city, is the city a slum lord or did they buy the property to scam money out of the feds for a friendly contractor?
Solve the problem.