malicious landlords & problem properties
DESCRIPTION
A policy white paper written in 2000 concerning problem properties in St. Louis. NOTE: Unfortunately, two of the graphics towards the end of the paper were corrupted, and do not upload correctly. My sincerest apologies.TRANSCRIPT
Malicious Landlords and Problem Properties:
A Policy White Paper
Gordon R. DymowskiMAL Project Chair
November 1, 2001
Malicious Landlords -
FOREWARD
Within St Louis neighborhoods stand silent reminders of the gradual drain
of vitality from the city. Abandoned and improperly maintained buildings are
prevalent throughout the city of St. Louis. Even in the proudest neighborhoods, at
least one property casually wears the neglect of its owner. Tenants often live in
properties suffering from terminal neglect, and neighbors organize to address or
alleviate the problem. In the worst cases, entire blocks appear lifeless, with
boarded up buildings sharing space with poorly maintained structures. This
phenomenon, if unchecked, has the potential to turn St. Louis into a haunted
town.
The issue of absentee landlords and problem properties - as well as their
effect on St. Louis neighborhoods - has been in the public eye in the last year.
During his election campaign, Mayor Francis Slay made this issue a key
component of his platform. A news item on KSDK on March 23, 2001, focused
on a woman paying rent to one landlord, only to discover that it was really owned
by another landlord, and that the property had been foreclosed on. On March 17,
2001, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon cracked down on several building
owners who were renting their condemned properties to residents. Finally, a
December 27, 2000 article in the Riverfront Times focused on how Jack Krause
- an absentee landlord with major property acquisitions along a single block - had
a detrimental affect on the 4400 block of Vista in the Forest Park Southeast
Neighborhood.
2
Malicious Landlords -
In 1999 Metropolis St. Louis approved the "White Paper on Absentee
Landlords," an attempt to create community awareness of irresponsible property
owners and to provide concrete policy recommendations to deal with the
absentee landlord phenomenon. In addition, this project brought together
community leaders and concerned citizens to collaborate in creating solutions to
this problem. The white paper is the result of hard work, research, collaboration,
and input from various sources, including landlords, property managers, housing
and health advocates, homeless and housing service providers, legislative
analysts, members of Metropolis St. Louis, and other concerned citizens.
The mission of Metropolis St. Louis is to create an environment in the city
of St. Louis that attracts and retains young people. After examining the absentee
landlord phenomenon, we propose that abandoned and problem properties
adversely affect the city's ability to attract and retain young people. The issue
affects the city on various levels, from stability and aesthetic life of a
neighborhood to its impact on the health and welfare of city residents. This paper
will outline the incentives and disincentives for "absentee landlords," discuss the
overall impact on the city and its neighborhoods, and propose specific policy
strategies for dealing with the problem.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purposes of this paper, we will distinguish among four distinct
"types" of landlords. First, resident landlords are those who reside within the
properties they own (making them "owner-occupied"), and who reinvest earning
back into the properties. Non-resident landlords do not reside in their properties
3
Malicious Landlords -
(or on the premises), but reinvest financial resources back into the properties and
perform appropriate maintenance on them. Absentee landlords may or may not
reside on the premises, but do not maintain an active interest in the properties
and grossly neglect and demonstrate apathy towards them. Finally, slumlords do
not reside on the rental properties they own, neglect their responsibilities for
them, and financially exploit their tenants.
There are two types of "absentee landlords," distinguished by their
motivations. One type consists of landlords who are inexperienced in property
management. They do not understand the scope of their responsibility. They tend
to have little education or professional training in being a landlord and little
understanding of maintenance procedures. Such landlords may have acquired
property through inheritance and/or become so overwhelmed that they cannot
perform their duties adequately. These people usually can be assisted through
remediation, education mentoring, and other strategies.
The second class of landlords straddles the line between absentee
landlords and slumlords (who can be considered malicious landlords). They are
"opportunists" (when it comes to developing property) who often financially
exploit their property. Initially, they may purchase distressed properties at
reduced rates through foreclosures and/or tax sales. Then, they may perform low
cost renovations, creating additional units and/or bedrooms to increase tenant
density. They commonly refinance their properties for more than their initial
investments in them and retain the difference without paying additional taxes.
4
Malicious Landlords -
Malicious landlords attempt to maximize cash flow and financially exploit
their property. They will accept any tenants (especially Section 8 and/or
financially stressed clients), regardless of rental history and/or level of
responsibility, without adequate (or any) preliminary screening. (Since Section 8
clients do not require screening for admission, this may facilitate malicious
landlords). Despite tenant's previous misconduct, such landlords do not evict
them for any reason other than non-payment of rent. Usually, there are no
management services on the premises, nor any ordinary or extraordinary
maintenance on the structure. When cited for building code violations, malicious
landlords attempt to manipulate housing inspectors and current systems to avoid
facing the consequence of their actions. Gradually, their properties are
economically exploited and the malicious landlord will abandon them when
disinvestment is complete.
Several key qualities distinguish malicious landlords. They are apathetic
about their properties, their responsibilities for them and housing codes. In
addition, they may be inaccessible to their tenants or unaware of the
maintenance issues surrounding their property. (Although some malicious
landlords may reside on the premises they own, many reside some geographic
distance from their property). Often, malicious landlords create a "paper trail" to
avoid accountability, utilizing multiple corporations and diversionary tactics to
make contact difficult (e.g., listing a vacant lot as a mailing address). Finally,
malicious landlords lack accountability and are irresponsible with their properties,
sometimes defaulting on the mortgages for their properties, passing properties to
5
Malicious Landlords -
non-profit corporations without notifying them of needed repairs, and committing
other such acts.
The primary quality that distinguishes malicious landlords from their more
responsible colleagues is their overall attitude towards the responsibilities of
property ownership. Malicious landlords believe that renters are "less than
human" and therefore disregard the safety and comfort of their tenants. Malicious
landlords also tend to avoid renting to stable tenants, refuse to control tenant
behavior, and disregard any confrontation by other concerned residents. To
maximize their own economic gain, malicious landlords may try to thwart any
movement towards neighborhood improvement in order to avoid a rise in
property values resulting in higher property taxes. Finally, malicious landlords
tend to disregard housing-related legislation and city codes or fight them when
challenged.
Neighborhood residents, rather than tenants, usually are the people who
identify problem properties to appropriate authorities. In fact, qualifying a problem
property is a "gray area" since visual confirmation may or may not be enough to
indicate problems. Often, problem properties have multiple health & safety code
violations resulting from a landlord's inability and/or unwillingness to repair or
maintain the properties. When residents complain to agencies such as the
Neighborhood Stabilization Office or the Citizens' Service Bureau topics include
heating problems, leaky roofs, and noisy neighbors.
It is often through this reporting process that problem properties (and
malicious landlords) are identified. A private citizen contacts the Citizens' Service
6
Malicious Landlords -
Bureau, the Neighborhood Stabilization Office, or the police department to file a
nuisance complaint. After three such complaints, authorities generate a work
order for inspection, and a housing inspector visits the property to examine the
exterior. Should this inspection uncover violations (such as lead paint or an
unstable foundation), the property owner is notified by letter and is given 30 days
to make appropriate repairs. Given mitigating circumstances, the inspector can
extend the deadline; otherwise, the property owner may be summoned to the city
Housing Court.
There is great room for improvement in handling property inspections.
Often, especially in Housing Conservation Districts, inspections are only
conducted when a new tenant moves in, unless prompted by a complaint.
Malicious landlords sometimes circumvent inspections by having new tenants
move in secretly, in the evenings, etc. Inspectors vary in quality, and some can
miss potential building faults (e.g., not seeing poor roofing when examining the
overall structure). When violations are found, property owners typically have 30
days to perform needed repairs, although this is a "good faith" standard and not
always adequate.
There are methods to search records in order to identify malicious
landlords and property owners and problem properties. For individual landlords,
and to determine who owns a particular property, one can access the city
Assessor's office, either going there in person or by using the online search
engine (http://stlouis.missouri.org/assessor/lookup.cfm). With realty companies
(especially if the owner is a corporation), information can be retrieved through the
7
Malicious Landlords -
Secretary of State's Office at http://168.66.2.55/missouribusinesses. Often,
however, trying to locate a landlord can be difficult since many malicious
landlords use such strategies as false addresses and multiple corporate holdings
to avoid detection. Also, City Ownership of Property web site information often is
updated monthly, so some information provided there might be outdated.
Although the city Housing Court has been a last resort in dealing with
malicious landlords, it sometimes is not as effective as it could be. In some
cases, the court can be too lenient when dealing with problem landlords.
Sometimes a fine is imposed only if a landlord is referred to court for failure to
make repairs. In certain situations, it may cost less to pay court fines than to
make appropriate repairs. If a landlord cannot be located and/or does not appear
in court, a bench warrant may be issued and the judicial process may be
extended for six months. In cases involving tax foreclosure, the city can receive
abandoned properties, bringing them under the aegis of the Land Reutilization
Authority.
There are several concerns, however, when dealing with properties held
by the LRA. First, the agency was not established to handle properties on a long-
term basis, and thus frequently fails to achieve the proper maintenance of
foreclosed rental properties, resulting in accusations that the city itself is an
"absentee landlord." Second, developing LRA properties can be difficult, mostly
due to inappropriate recommendations (e.g., requesting repair of a gutter before
major structural renovations). The development process includes a funding plan,
including a time line for completion, and other supporting materials. Although
8
Malicious Landlords -
most tax-foreclosed properties do not become available for "tax sale" for three
years, this delay in sale of these properties allows the abandoned buildings to be
stripped to their foundations and looted of various assets, including toilets, sinks,
fireplaces, and pipes. After three years and with no purchaser of the properties at
a tax sale, the buildings are then received by the LRA, which does not have the
resources to prevent further decay of the structure. The LRA can only trust for a
developer to come along and save the building.
One major criticism heard by the authors of this paper is that landlords too
often have been presented as the "bad guy," while inappropriate tenant behavior
has been downplayed. Although tenant misconduct is a critical factor, ultimately
property owners (and property managers) are responsible for the overall
maintenance of their property, including regulating tenant conduct. In fairness,
problem tenants are a relatively easier consideration and more appropriate
interventions can be performed. Proper tenant screening - the primary method for
avoid problem tenants - is often not utilized by malicious landlords. Some
malicious landlords perform only cursory credit and police screening of tenants.
The Neighborhood Stabilization Office provides "Good Neighbor" guides and
landlord packets to people who request such materials. Although tenants do not
receive special education, several resources are available to them through
various sources, including Housing Comes First, the NSO, and the Missouri
Attorney General's Office.
Another critical issue in problem properties is lead abatement and the
handling of lead-based materials. According to federal law, if a property was build
9
Malicious Landlords -
prior to 1978, the property owner must furnish a prospective tenant a completed
"Disclosure of Information and Acknowledgment Lead Based Paint and/or Lead
Based Paint Hazard" Statement and the booklet "Protect your Family From Lead
In Your Home." If the disclosure statement indicates that the owner has an
inspection report, then a copy of the report must be given to the prospective
tenant. The tenant and owner must sign the disclosure statement and each
keeps a copy. If such an inspection has never been performed, the owner must
disclose that the status of the building is "unknown." However, there are gaps in
this system, since malicious landlords may not perform the necessary paperwork,
use professional building management, and/or be engaged in professional
landlord associations. Current policy indicates a move towards further disclosure
on the part of property owners, although it might be financially detrimental to do
so. Some landlords do not see lead abatement as a problem and refuse to deal
with the issue. Other major factors keeping property owners from following
policies are buildings' age and cost of renovations.
CASE STUDIES/IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOODS
To assess the impact of malicious landlords and problem properties in St.
Louis neighborhoods, authors of this paper consulted with and sought input from
a diverse group of individuals. Neighborhood Stabilization Officers from various
areas of the city, viewing the problem from a variety of angles, were interviews
for broad perspectives. Members of Metropolis St. Louis were asked to provide
their insight and to examine the "ground level" effect. Several representatives
from landlord associations provided input as well and clarified city policy when
10
Malicious Landlords -
appropriate. Neighborhood activists also made contributions and several officials
from appropriate social service agencies dedicated their time and insight into
assembling this paper. A list of acknowledgements for everyone involved from
the initial launch of this project to the revival to its completion appears at the end
of this paper.
A remark from a neighborhood activist summarized the negative impact of
the absentee landlord phenomenon on St Louis neighborhoods, “one building
can ruin a block.” Over a period of time, one improperly maintained and/or
abandoned property, coupled with a growing disenchantment with an inability to
utilize “the system”, can cause a loss of middle-class, “decent” citizens from any
given area). As a result, property values for the surrounding properties decrease
and the malicious landlord benefits from lower property taxes. Other property
owners become discouraged and disenchanted with the area. Residents
gradually become discouraged as neighbors leave, and disappointment that
“another good one has gone” results in a gradual disenchantment with the
community. Consequent instability caused neighborhoods to lose their
cohesiveness and become places where (to use St. Louis slang) people tend to
“stay” rather than “live.”
Another, more insidious, effect has been the correlation between health
issues and the prevalence of abandoned properties and vacant lots. Various
agencies behind Proposition H examined this correlation, focusing on three “hot”
ZIP codes with a great prevalence of abandoned properties and vacant lots:
63118, 63107, and 63113. In ZIP codes with large numbers of vacant lots and
11
Malicious Landlords -
abandoned properties, the Proposition H team found higher incidents of lead
poisoning, avoidable hospitalization (e.g., asthma and high blood pressure) and
other health problems.
Locally, the problem of malicious landlords was more prevalent between
eight to ten years ago. However, these landlords are becoming less of a problem
due to the implementation of creative solutions and some changes in policy.
Earlier, a city program allowed residents landlords who acquired a property “next
door” to receive tax incentives. Problem-property officers in the Police
Department have also helped to reduce the number of malicious landlords.
Perhaps the greatest asset has been the creation of a new Housing Court
equipped with a “resource bank” for landlords who cannot afford or do not have
the resources to bring their buildings up to code.
Some successful strategies have helped rebuild neighborhoods affected
by problem properties. One such strategy has been the reaffirming a sense of
“community” among residents not only to reestablish cohesion but also to monitor
potential problem properties. (“Calling circles” among residents of a particular
block are helpful in identifying problem properties and motivating appropriate
agencies to act.) In addition, those neighborhoods not adversely affected by
problem properties seem to have more effective collaboration between differing
entitles, including the NSO, the Citizen Service Bureau, the alderman, and other
programs like Sustainable Neighborhoods and Weed & Seed. There seems to be
an inverse correlation between owners who occupy their buildings and the
12
Malicious Landlords -
problems inherent in those buildings. Owner occupancy is not always feasible,
but proper property management always is a key factor.
POLICY - STRATEGIES & SUGGESTIONS
Several obvious ways of countermanding problem properties and
malicious landlords exist, although their practicality might be questionable. One
method would be to encourage more owner-occupied properties; however, with
several kinds of properties this might not always be workable. In those cases,
encouraging appropriate property management might be sufficient. In addition,
greater screening criteria for property owners would help to identify problem
tenants. Façade improvement programs and loans to encourage property
improvement also would act to counteract this trend. A revitalization of the "next
door" program for property owners to acquire adjacent space and/or properties
also would help stem the tide of malicious landlords. City policies that encourage
further financial and emotional investment in St. Louis neighborhoods would
allow for gradual improvement and stabilization to become the norm rather than
the exception.
We suggest several other strategies for dealing with rental and other
properties in order to curb the tide of malicious landlords and problem properties.
Encouraging professional management of buildings that are not owner-occupied,
or across multiple residences owned by one person/corporation, would be
extremely helpful. (Tax incentives might be one means to execute this idea).
More frequent inspections preferably on an annual basis outside of external
solicitation, along with resources for financial assistance for making appropriate
13
Malicious Landlords -
repairs, also might work to diminish problems. One idea for a potential tenant
resource would be a "Better Business Bureau" of landlords, in order to facilitate
decision making when choosing a rental property. (The Missouri Department of
Professional Regulation has a web site that lists real estate brokers and realtors,
which is an important "first step"). Another solution would be to encourage
landlords to utilize professional tenant screening agencies to avoid potential
problem tenants.
In terms of economic development, we recommend significant changes in
the way the Land Reutilization Authority is run. As it stands, problems have been
reported with the city's mandates for property rehabilitation. For example,
although major structural work might need to be performed on a given building,
the LRA might make a gutter repair or replacement, ordinarily a low priority, a
prerequisite for further work to be performed. In addition, it can currently take up
to three years before the LRA receives a property for disposition. Although due
process should not be denied, shortening the length of time for a "tax sale" might
facilitate investment in these properties as well as avoid deterioration of existing
structures. In terms of structurally unsound properties, facilitating demolition of
such structures and encouraging further development of available land would
also be judicious.
One critical concern is the risk of retaliation to a tenant who calls for an
inspection. Current State statues (RSMo 441.620, 501.308.2, 441.233.2) protects
tenants against retaliatory decrease of services, including termination of utilities
(gas, water, electricity, etc), for reporting of lead problems or building code
14
Malicious Landlords -
violations. However when some tenants complain to the city about code
violations, their landlords may order them to vacate since the landlords can do so
at any time without cause. Given the subject of problem properties, this may
seem relatively tangential and inappropriate to this discussion. However many
malicious landlords often will not perform appropriate repairs and intimidate
tenants into not reporting problems. We recommend explicit city legislation
prohibiting retaliatory evictions due to reporting building code violations,
empowering tenants to take a more assertive stance when dealing with malicious
landlords.
Within the past two years, there has been critical city legislation that has
attempted to deal with abandoned properties and problematic property owners
(including landlords). These laws may prove potentially helpful. First, property
owners (including landlords) will be charged under city ordinance # 64678 a two
hundred dollar ($200) semi-annual registration fee if their property has been
vacant for at least six months and which is in violation of the Building Code of the
City of St. Louis. City Ordinance #65194, signed into law by Mayor Francis Slay
on May 3, 2001, requires all owners of real estate to inform the city of St. Louis
the street address of the principle place of residence for every owner of said real
estate. A post office box shall not be accepted as a residential street address. A
corporate officer will have to furnish his or her place of principle residence. This
intends to diminish the "paper trail" that malicious landlords tend to hide behind,
give them greater accountability, and inspire a greater sense of investment and
obligation to care for their current properties.
15
Malicious Landlords -
Hopefully, perhaps no change is as significant as the new Housing Court,
part of the Neighborhood Court and Corrections System headed by
Administrative Judge James Sullivan. Its purpose initially was to handle
"nuisance crimes" - small crimes that nonetheless affect the quality of citizens'
lives. The new Housing Court refers Housing violators to a resource bank which
includes architects, building contractors, labor unions, lenders and other
resources for assistance in bringing their buildings up to code. However, if a
violator does not appear in court or does not comply with the court's
recommendations, special problem-property offices can arrest them and judges
can sentence the offender to either community service or jail. Although this
system is new and the outcome of its efforts has not yet been measured, this
new approach encourages St. Louis property owners to maintain their properties
and reduces the "naïve" landlord population.
Active engagement, mentoring, and education can prevent naïve landlords
(those who are undereducated and may be "over their heads" in maintaining
properties) from becoming "absentee landlords." Although there is great
frustration by some landlords about newer landlords entering professional
associations, more direct mentoring and guidance should be encouraged.
Several informal ways of networking also exist, from current city offices like the
Neighborhood Stabilization Office to e-mail discussion lists (such at
[email protected]), from Internet discussion forums to
professional landlord associations. (In addition, the NSO runs a yearly landlord
16
Malicious Landlords -
conference that provides training, resources, and networking opportunities for
regional landlords).
Although problem tenants can also cause property disinvestment, one
must be careful not to turn them into a "straw man" in avoiding other issues.
Tenant education materials are critical and, as of this paper, Metropolis St. Louis
is collaborating with the NSO on a "Good Tenant Guide" to inform young people
of their rights and responsibilities as tenants. (This guide would be a preventative
measure to avoid problems, thereby creating an environment that actively
retains young people). In addition, we encourage landlords and property owners
to utilize professional screening materials.
CONCLUSION
This paper attempts to discuss the problem of malicious and "absentee"
landlords and problem properties in the city of St. Louis. The incentives, impact
and implications on policy have been presented. However, any statements made
in this paper should be considered the latest but not the last word. St Louis is
adopting many ways of dealing with this current phenomenon. If the city is to
survive and attract new residents, handling these abandoned properties is
critical. Housing stock needs to be increased. Neighborhoods need to regain
cohesion. Attempting to revitalize the city of St. Louis is a task that will require
the collaboration of many individuals with a single mission. The slogan of
Metropolis St. Louis is "The City is Back - Back the City."
17
Malicious Landlords -
By addressing the problem of disinvestment of properties and
neighborhoods, people who wish to improve conditions in St. Louis demonstrate
their commitment to the latter part of that slogan.
18
Malicious Landlords -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper was the result of the hard work and dedication of a diverse group of people This is an attempt to say a collective "thank you" for those who helped complete this project, and any apologies to those who are unmentioned.First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dave Drebes & Judis Santos, who initiated the project, and then handed me the reigns. It was a great opportunity, and I thank them for bringing it to my attention
Extensive thanks are also expressed for those Metropolis members involved in the initial phases of this project in 1999, and who did much preliminary work. You left an excellent foundation to build on and move forward.
Next, I owe Michael Chance a great debt - it was his insight into city policy, and well as his conceptualization of these issues, that informed and influenced the thinking of this paper. Thanks
Hearty thanks to Dena Hibbard, Jim Hogan, Kathryn Woodard, and Joe Squillace, who took time out of their busy schedules to discuss these issues and share their insights.
The bulk of the credit goes to the members of the Metropolis Absentee Landlord Project, who helped bring this project to completion. My sincerest gratitude to Faith Barnes, Janet Becker, Elizabeth Braznell, Mike Daus, Alderman Jennifer Florida, Marti Frumhoff, Dan Glazier, Jennifer Heggemann, Renee Hofer, Chris Howard, Maheshi Joshi, Kathleen Kelly, Jim Magnus, Angel McCormick, Scott Mills, Graham Prichard, Brooke Roseberry, Josh Reinert, Brooke Roseberry, Amy Shehi, Jason Stone, Steve Wilke-Shapiro (whose maps helped prove a picture truly is worth a thousand words), and Ajay Zutshi for their time, attention, and insight. Thanks for your help, your guidance, and your allowing me to fill your e-mail boxes.
In addition, several organizations also lent their time and support, including Housing Comes First, Adequate Housing for Missourians, the Neighborhood Stabilization Office, Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, and the St. Louis Realty Property Owners Association (who graciously printed and distributed this paper).
Special thanks to Doug Carr; Marlene Weeks, and Jim Magnus for their time and effort proofreading the paper, helping to make it readable and accurate.
Gratitude is also due to the Metropolis Steering Committee, who helped facilitate completion of this paper.
Finally, hearty thanks are due to my assorted Metropolis friends for their emotional and moral support. From the former coworker who listened to my worries taking on this project to the friend who mentioned that I had been working on it "forever", I was blessed with those who believed in the project and gave their support. You may not have done any direct work on this paper, but you provided something even far more valuable.
19
Malicious Landlords -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hampel, Paul. "Nixon Obtains Order against City Landlords". St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 17, 2001, p 9
Hogan, Jim. Personal Interview. March 26, 2001.
Hibbard, Dena, Neighborhood Stabilization Office. Personal Interview. March 20, 2001.
Squillace, Joe, Citizens for Missouri's Children. Personal Interview. April 11, 2001.
Wilson, D.J. "The Homes Jack Destroyed." Riverfront Times, December 27, 2000, 14-18.
Woodard, Kathryn, Neighborhood Stabilization Office. Personal Interview. February 28, 2001.
20
Malicious Landlords -
APPENDIX A - WEB SITES OF INTEREST
City Assessor's Officehttp://www.stlouiscity.com/assess/lookup.cfm
CIN Housing Sitehttp://stlouis.missouri.org/housing/
Metropolis St. Louishttp://www.mstl.org
Missouri Attorney General's Officehttp://www.ago.state.mo.us
Missouri Department of Professional Regulations http://www.ecodev.state.mo.us/pr/
Missouri State Legislative Search Enginehttp://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/
St. Louis City Ordinance Search Enginehttp://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/search.htm
St. Louis City Landlords E-mail Discussion Listhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/STLCITYlandlords/
St Louis Landlordshttp://www.stlouislandlords.com
State Business Databasehttp://168.66.2.55/missouribusinesses
21
Malicious Landlords -
APPENDIX B - PROPERTY DENSITY IN ST. LOUIS CITY
The following pages show four maps:
• Renter-Occupied Housing Units In St. Louis City
• Owner-Occupied Housing Units in St. Louis City
• Vacant Housing Units in St Louis City
• Vacant Parcels in St. Louis City
(Special thanks to Steve Wilke-Shapiro for his work on putting these together)
22
Malicious Landlords - 23
Malicious Landlords - 24
Malicious Landlords - 25
Malicious Landlords -
26