Would it be unreasonable to conclude that observing no decline in local criminal activity following the demolition of an areas abandoned houses could be an indicator that the only houses standing are possibly owned, occupied, and/or maintained by the area criminal population?
Stop using logic. It doesn’t fit the narrative.
No, that's nor unreasonable. But AFAIK usually people assume abandoned houses are used for criminal activity, not that they were abandoned because of it. Correlation is not causation.
People assume that abandoned homes are used for criminal activity, because this has been often confirmed to be the case. However, I don't see the municipal demolition of abandoned homes to be a bad thing. One of the biggest problems after inept government policy affecting home sales has been the conversion of affordable starter homes into overpriced McMansions. The market has always found it's easier to sell/buy a vacant lot for development than to sell/buy an overpriced house in a declining, or ineptly administered, municipality.
I would think an abandoned house will quickly become a home for rodents, which is unhealthy.
(post is archived)