Durkeeville 100 year old house in danger of demolition

[MEGATRON]

^You do understand that your tax money pays for the demolition, right? Why is that more palatable?

Answer this question: what happens after 3-6 years of mothballing?

[thelakelander]

Maybe it's restored. Maybe it's mothballed for another 3-6 years?  Maybe it falls down on its own?  Unless COJ is choosing to take someone's property, why would COJ be on the hook in either path?  Also, this stuff should require pages of back and forth discussion to figure out.  How do cities that actually value their history handle this situation?

Now, that I've answered your question, how about answering mine?

MEGATRON, do you approve of using tax dollars to demolish structurally sound buildings?

[MEGATRON]

Maybe it's restored. Maybe it's mothballed for another 3-6 years?  Maybe it falls down on its own?  Unless COJ is choosing to take someone's property, why would COJ be on the hook in either path?  Also, this stuff should require pages of back and forth discussion to figure out.  How do cities that actually value their history handle this situation?

Now, that I've answered your question, how about answering mine?

MEGATRON, do you approve of using tax dollars to demolish structurally sound buildings?

I've answered that.  I don't believe that COJ should demolish structurally sound buildings.

Back to your answer: so the property owner should be on the hook for mothballing?  You think those two sisters can afford that avenue?

If it falls down on its own and someone is injured, the City would be sued, fair or not.

[iloveionia]

I'll respond with a little more detail about mothballing.

First and foremost the city does NOT pay for mothballing.  It is privately funded. (but just for fun, they could, but refuse and instead prefer to abate via demolition even though mothballing would be cheaper, smarter, and sustainable.)

One of the requirements of the COA is to submit a plan for habitability.  That's a 3-year plan as that is the life of the COA (though I have mentioned it can be renewed [of course depending.])

The owner of the mothballed home must do a walk-around and walk through of the property at least once monthly.  Any issues?  Fix them.

The grass and landscaping must be maintained monthly.

There is an inspection after one year of the certificate to check on the progress of the COA. 

So what happens if the above doesn't happen?  While code is "hands off" during the mothball COA, if more deterioation or damage occurs on the property, they will do their due diligence.  If there are additional (and valid) complaints, they will do their due diligence.   At the end of the 3 year COA if the owner has done little or nothing?  That's up to HPC.  If the home is in the same condition as it was 3-years ago (meaning it has not deterioriated further) then they may very well renew.  Again, up to their professional discretion. 

Let's say they don't renew?  And the property falls into disary?  Then it's a hot code case again.

On the property I mothballed (mine) I paid close to $6k to mothball her.  For our props and others we have mothballed?  $1 - $6k for each.  That's a lot of money to throw away and then ignore the requirements of the COA follow-through.  Additionally, it's not like it is easy to mothball, I mean it is, but it is WORK it's not like with the snap of a finger and a few bucks a home is mothballed.  And furthermore, someone who mothballs is likely to want to restore/rehab.  It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

Lastly.  I have spoken to two demolition contractors that contract with the city.  Each have demolished several homes that they had no understanding of why.  They were structurally sound and difficult to take down. 

Disclaimer: I didn't spell check.  No time.

[iloveionia]

The city claims everyone a mile away will be hurt from a condemned home that is going to fall.  Despite some belief, the sky is not falling.  The old homes have withstood 100 years.  Bet they could go another. 

[thelakelander]

I've answered that.  I don't believe that COJ should demolish structurally sound buildings.

Back to your answer: so the property owner should be on the hook for mothballing?

Yes.

You think those two sisters can afford that avenue?

Yes.

If it falls down on its own and someone is injured, the City would be sued, fair or not.

Why would it fall down if it's proven to be structurally sound?  The structure appears to be setback from the property line. Even in the event it did fall down, why would the city be sued?

[sheclown]

Removing all of the other components, the sad sister story, the age and quality of the building, it just makes plain sense to recycle houses -- putting effort into saving what currently exists.

If the city won't do this, all of the little blue recycle bins are just bullshit.

[acme54321]

I still do not know why the city does not sieze and auction these problem properties instead of bulldozing. 

[MEGATRON]

I still do not know why the city does not sieze and auction these problem properties instead of bulldozing.

That would absolutely be my suggestion.

[MEGATRON]

I'll respond with a little more detail about mothballing.

First and foremost the city does NOT pay for mothballing.  It is privately funded. (but just for fun, they could, but refuse and instead prefer to abate via demolition even though mothballing would be cheaper, smarter, and sustainable.)

One of the requirements of the COA is to submit a plan for habitability.  That's a 3-year plan as that is the life of the COA (though I have mentioned it can be renewed [of course depending.])

The owner of the mothballed home must do a walk-around and walk through of the property at least once monthly.  Any issues?  Fix them.

The grass and landscaping must be maintained monthly.

There is an inspection after one year of the certificate to check on the progress of the COA. 

So what happens if the above doesn't happen?  While code is "hands off" during the mothball COA, if more deterioation or damage occurs on the property, they will do their due diligence.  If there are additional (and valid) complaints, they will do their due diligence.   At the end of the 3 year COA if the owner has done little or nothing?  That's up to HPC.  If the home is in the same condition as it was 3-years ago (meaning it has not deterioriated further) then they may very well renew.  Again, up to their professional discretion. 

Let's say they don't renew?  And the property falls into disary?  Then it's a hot code case again.

On the property I mothballed (mine) I paid close to $6k to mothball her.  For our props and others we have mothballed?  $1 - $6k for each.  That's a lot of money to throw away and then ignore the requirements of the COA follow-through.  Additionally, it's not like it is easy to mothball, I mean it is, but it is WORK it's not like with the snap of a finger and a few bucks a home is mothballed.  And furthermore, someone who mothballs is likely to want to restore/rehab.  It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

Lastly.  I have spoken to two demolition contractors that contract with the city.  Each have demolished several homes that they had no understanding of why.  They were structurally sound and difficult to take down. 

Disclaimer: I didn't spell check.  No time.

Appreciate the detailed response.  Call me a pessimist, I just don't see these two sisters taking action (for whatever reason) after 15 years of neglect.

[MEGATRON]

I've answered that.  I don't believe that COJ should demolish structurally sound buildings.

Back to your answer: so the property owner should be on the hook for mothballing?

Yes.

You think those two sisters can afford that avenue?

Yes.

If it falls down on its own and someone is injured, the City would be sued, fair or not.

Why would it fall down if it's proven to be structurally sound?  The structure appears to be setback from the property line. Even in the event it did fall down, why would the city be sued?

If the City had the property in the enforcement process then backed off, then someone was injured due to the condition of the house, you better believe the City would be sued.  I believe the City remains in litigation due to a tree branch falling and injuring a kid, where the tree was scheduled for removal.  The City has the deep pockets in that situation, not the landowner.

[iloveionia]

Neglected properties should be properly mothballed by the city, specifically code enforcement.
That negates safety concerns, protects the house, and removes blight.
Then yes, rather than bulldozing, auctioning as was done many years ago is a positive action.
It promotes preservation, sustainability, and puts money back to the city.
The Chief of Code is adamantly opposed to any thing like this. She only supports demolition.

[Josh]

I've answered that.  I don't believe that COJ should demolish structurally sound buildings.

Back to your answer: so the property owner should be on the hook for mothballing?

Yes.

You think those two sisters can afford that avenue?

Yes.

If it falls down on its own and someone is injured, the City would be sued, fair or not.

Why would it fall down if it's proven to be structurally sound?  The structure appears to be setback from the property line. Even in the event it did fall down, why would the city be sued?

If the City had the property in the enforcement process then backed off, then someone was injured due to the condition of the house, you better believe the City would be sued.  I believe the City remains in litigation due to a tree branch falling and injuring a kid, where the tree was scheduled for removal.  The City has the deep pockets in that situation, not the landowner.

Well yeah, the tree branch that fell and maimed that teen fell from a tree on city property. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison to the matter discussed.

[MEGATRON]

I've answered that.  I don't believe that COJ should demolish structurally sound buildings.

Back to your answer: so the property owner should be on the hook for mothballing?

Yes.

You think those two sisters can afford that avenue?

Yes.

If it falls down on its own and someone is injured, the City would be sued, fair or not.

Why would it fall down if it's proven to be structurally sound?  The structure appears to be setback from the property line. Even in the event it did fall down, why would the city be sued?

If the City had the property in the enforcement process then backed off, then someone was injured due to the condition of the house, you better believe the City would be sued.  I believe the City remains in litigation due to a tree branch falling and injuring a kid, where the tree was scheduled for removal.  The City has the deep pockets in that situation, not the landowner.

Well yeah, the tree branch that fell and maimed that teen fell from a tree on city property. Hardly an apples-to-apples comparison to the matter discussed.

So, you disagree that, under those circumstances, the City would face a lawsuit.  John Morgan would happily take a break from taping Tebow commercials to file that suit.

[strider]

As to a lawsuit because the property was scheduled to be demolished but wasn't, as long as the issues, meaning any REAL structural issues, were addressed during the mothballing process, then the issues were abated and no basis for that lawsuit exists anymore.  If anyone would end up in some lawyers sights, it would be the owners of the property as usual and in this case, they have nothing.

However, speaking of lawsuits, what about MCCD employees presenting misinformation under oath to accomplish the demolition of historic properties? What about MCCD employees breaking laws to get their case file load up?  That is perhaps as volatile of a issue as any liability issues from not going forward with a demolition. The policies currently set by Ms Scott seem more likely to put the city in a liability situation than the mothballing of a condemned house.