Why can't the neighbors mow their own lawns; not let the city do it for them?

[Deja Q]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/29/real_estate/foreclosure_tax_drop/index.htm?postversion=2007112914

For example, the suburban city of Shaker Heights, Ohio, will spend $500,000 this year just to maintain empty properties. The cost to Cleveland Heights merely to keep lawns trimmed at abandoned homes has risen to $75,000 annually from a mere $6,000 three years ago.

Surely there are better things to do than prune a few weeds?

[mikelgb]

1. dosn't matter how shitty it is

as long as it looks nice

[flvegan]

2. The municipality can put a lien on the property for maintaining it

or otherwise making it safe to the general public. That lien will have to be paid off before it can be sold.

They usually get their money.

[Zueda]

3. I haven't read the article but I take that the city is mowing ...

the lawns of forclosed homes. One would think that the banks who own the foreclosed homes would have to pick-up the tab. :shrug:

[AlCzervik]

4. it should be the bank that now owns it that takes care of the maintenance.

thats how it now works in my city, overgrown weedy lawn--there is a special phone number to call and if the owner (the bank) doesn't take care of it they get a $100 fine and then the fines continue until the lawn and or broken windows are taken care of.

[enid602]

5. Shaker Heights

When I was in college (some 30+ years ago), Shaker Heights was considered the height of elegance, and people listened if you said you were from there. How much we've declined. Now Shaker Heights can barely afford to mow the yards of foreclosed homes. Thanks again, George.