What to do About Derelict Buildings?

Recently the City of Winnipeg took swift action to put a fence around a property that was causing a hazard in the neighborhood;

The City of Winnipeg has erected a fence around a West End property after its owner demolished a house but failed to fill in the foundation, leaving a hole that posed a public safety hazard.

Two years ago, the city convicted the owner of 369 Home St. under the Vacant and Derelict Building Bylaw for failing to maintain the property. The city then went through the lengthy legal process of seizing the home, issuing a call for development proposals to fix it up and even choosing one of the plans. But the existing owner transferred the property to a new owner -- who began tearing down the structure before the expropriation process could be completed, said Garry Solkoski, the city's building inspections administrator.

It took two years, just to put up a fence. In the meantime a gaping hole, filled with construction debris, had been left on the site causing a potentially dangerous situation.

Another example of the ineffectiveness of government. After all, what happens to the government bureaucrats if they neglect to "keep the people safe" in situations like this? Do they loose business or wages? Do they get reprimanded? Nope, because you are forced to pay for them no matter what you think about the job they're doing.

So, what should be done in a free market situation where a derelict building may cause harm to the surrounding people?

First of all, the free market would respect private property rights; if someone lets their property become run down then it is their responsibility to upkeep it. Perhaps you won't like the look of it, that is someone they we just have to live with as a free society, that people will do things that we don't like.

In a free market situation, in place of city councils and zoning regulation, one option would be a home owner or neighborhood associations.

These associations would be superior for several reasons;

1. A neighborhood association president is more likely to be your neighbor (since it deals with a smaller area likely) than your city councilor, easier to access and influence.
2. It would be based on contract law. With neighborhood associations you enter into them with contracts that lay out the terms that you agree to, derelict building would be covered with clear responsibilities and penalties.

The difference between this and the current system of zoning and take-over is that you explicitly agree to the terms, and the people in the association have consent from all parties.

With these sort of clearly laid out terms that all the parties would agree to, action could be swift. Instead of two years of red tape to just put up a fence around a neglected property, it would be done swiftly based on terms of the contract.

With just these ideas alone, we can see how private systems and people working together voluntarily to protect their neighborhoods would be more effective and efficient than with the current government system, where making changes to make the system "better" is a frustratingly slow bureaucratic process.