No matter how well designed or the level of detail, blight ordinances do not eliminate blight. They can, however, be an effective tool that when used with other initiatives can get members of a community, or a commercial district, to clean up their act. This is why the stricter blight ordinance recently adopted by the New London City Council is deserving of support.

The council’s intent is to get property owners in the downtown business district who sit on their holdings awaiting a turnaround that will allow them to cash in, to in the meantime at least put a pretty face on their vacant buildings.

That can be important. A downtown that looks good is going to be more attractive to developers who are genuinely committed to investing the resources necessary to turn the district’s older buildings into modern success stories, while maintaining their historic character.

Unfortunately, property owners can play games by doing the bare minimum required, unwilling to invest more than they absolutely have to while looking to a time they can resell at a profit or conclude the economic pendulum has swung far enough to make the investment worth it.

The ordinance targeting downtown blight in New London specifically requires that building interiors that can be seen from the street be free of debris and construction-related materials, unless work is being undertaken. Windows need to be windows, not openings covered with canvas or tarps or permanently boarded up with plywood.

If owners fail to adhere to these and other requirements, they could face fines of up to $250 per day.

Enforcement alone, however, is not likely to result in dramatic change. Properties are often held as limited liability corporations, insulating individuals from direct liability. Enforcement can be challenging, time consuming and costly.

And the fact is, until owners see a path to profit they are not going to invest heavily in redevelopment. But that opportunity appears to be on the city’s doorstep. New housing, targeting a growing Electric Boat workforce and aging boomers ready to replace yard work with nearby entertainment options, could fuel a renewal. The downtown can build on its existing strengths — great restaurant choices and a vibrant art and music scene.

In addition to the stick of a blight ordinance, the council and administration of Mayor Michael Passero might consider what new carrots it can offer to kick start redevelopment.

One idea worth dusting off is implementation of a land value tax. First discussed a decade ago, the idea received enough attention to achieve enabling legislation from the state legislature. Unfortunately, city leaders could not summon the will to make such a bold policy move.

LVT shifts a greater percentage of the tax burden to the land itself. It rewards economic activity, in the form of revitalized buildings and development of empty lots, rather than punishes it.

As things stand now, a building owner who makes improvements faces a higher assessment and so higher property taxes. This is a disincentive to redevelop a property unless a clear return on investment is assured.

LVT instead provides a disincentive to simply sit on a property, because a greater percentage of the tax assessment is based on the land, not the building sitting on it. Paying a hefty tax on the land can provide an incentive to fix things up and attract a tenant to start generating revenues. The owner doesn’t face a big tax spike for the improvements, but can use resulting revenues to help pay that land tax.

This approach should target a commercial district. It should not apply citywide because it would penalize some businesses, such as car dealerships that must leave much of their land undeveloped for car inventories. So too with shopping centers and their expansive parking lots.

If not LVT, the administration should consider other measures to encourage investment, because whacking away with the blight-ordinance stick is unlikely to work by itself.

The Day editorial board meets regularly with political, business and community leaders and convenes weekly to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Tim Dwyer, Editorial Page Editor Paul Choiniere, Managing Editor Tim Cotter, Staff Writer Julia Bergman and retired deputy managing editor Lisa McGinley. However, only the publisher and editorial page editor are responsible for developing the editorial opinions. The board operates independently from the Day newsroom.