I've had a chance to parse the new zoning code, and found some rather interesting changes in the language about how the City (well, City Council who writes the zoning code) views vacant lots.

Basically, they're bad news. Something to avoid.

However, with recent public dustups about vacant lots,
first in Point Breeze (vacant lot improved into park contrary to objections and warnings of the City),
second in Roxborough (demolition of a half block of 1800s homes to create, oh-boy, another vacant lot)

it does raise an interesting question
- is a vacant lot really, logically,
a "use of the property"?

It seems that it's exactly the opposite- an intentional NON-USE,
rather than any positive use.

Hal