423 Walnut Court, a cute two story house off Walnut Street, has a green demolition tag.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/IMG_2296.jpg)
The house has been in the system since 1998, and has been worked on, periodically, through the years. It has had the same owner since 1998.
Faced with mounting fines, the owner has given up and now the house will go.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/amanshome001.jpg)
First, I wish our CE's spoke something close to the english language and not backwoods slang (the conversations posted so far are very, ummm unprofessional). Second, I thought CE said they did not have a "Formal Track"? Clearly, yet again we are seeing CE requesting a property be put on the "Formal Track". I am not sure why I am surprised, we see this all over the city in different departments, but it is always shocking to me to have someone in charge make claims such as this, while their direct reports are on record stating the opposite, under oath.
For those of us that are not really familiar with the "demo detail speak", can someone help me out here. I read the transcript over and over but I can not see where it is an unsafe structure. I see that it needs yard work, and obviously other some work that required permits to be pulled (which, heck now days could be planting flowers) but nothing about the structural integrity of the house.
Cindi. Gheesh. Stop making sense. It's not about structural integrity. It's about safety; and believe me, tall weeds could get you all turned up and you could twist an ankle! The justification is fines. I have read HPC minutes that state the fines exceed the value of the house, so it justifies demo. I'll go dig up the minutes for one such property as an example.
Code Enforcement is intidimating and harassing to homeowners. This fine policy, while it may have had good intentions when it began, it is failing our homes in the historic district now. It must stop.
iloveionia, thanks for clearing it up. i have seen some hpc person posting on here, maybe they can show we silly laypeople the rational of this stupidity. so they tear down the house because the lawn needs mowed, then you have a much bigger yard to not mow??? - got it. i hope i have chosen the correct -really? WTF? font for this post.
so using this "logic" - riddle me this. if i have a house on an ash site, and because of said ash site can not get anyone to lend money to anyone wanting to buy said toxic waste, it is in essence of no value. does that now make it ready for demo (just let me get the animals out first)?
It's a domino effect. First you are cited for overgrowth, then trash, then it's noticed there's a broken window, oops; no electricity? They keep coming back and coming back.
The Formal Track for Demolition is popular. It seems to be the only response. And unfortunately, by standard, it was backed by the ED representing SPAR. No one came to speak against demolition, only for. Well, that has changed. Those of us representing preservation are here and are NOT going away.
As we work to build a relationship with HPC, I am confident change will occur.
This is exactly what's failing and what's chipping away at our historic district. How in the world can anyone be expected to pay rolling fines like that? It's also wrong that code enforcement deems a place unsafe because of no electricity, over grown yards, or even broken windows. If the city properly boarded these places, and NOT demo because of fines and NOT place them on the unsafe list because of minor issues...we would not have lost as many as we have.
I just recently got copies of the houses on the formal track list (yeah, the one that they tried to say didn't exist) and a copy of all houses on the unsafe list, dating back to 1998. I'm currently sifting through the unsafe list and will break it down by streets and quadrants. Once that's complete, then we'll need to go by, photograph and note the conditions of each place.
This simply has to stop, things have got to change in how the city handles fines, and code enforcement has to be stopped with how they list houses.
Quote from: iloveionia on August 14, 2010, 12:02:09 PM
Cindi. Gheesh. Stop making sense. It's not about structural integrity. It's about safety; and believe me, tall weeds could get you all turned up and you could twist an ankle! The justification is fines. I have read HPC minutes that state the fines exceed the value of the house, so it justifies demo. I'll go dig up the minutes for one such property as an example.
Code Enforcement is intidimating and harassing to homeowners. This fine policy, while it may have had good intentions when it began, it is failing our homes in the historic district now. It must stop.
Though not referencing this particular house on Walnut Court, here is the HPC reference to liens exceeding property values on pages 17/18 of this page:
(http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs127.ash2/39685_1467566821146_1592832305_1135763_6222951_n.jpg)
Does this take into account "current property values"? Most places have fallen at least 25% and could be even more! How does the property appraiser take into account the bubble busting and what is the value compared to three years ago...............property appraiser needs to get into the field and adjust accordingly with real time values..........not something that is 3 years or more ago!
again, it is just really hard to fathom how easilly it is for them to just come along and demo these historic homes - for something like fines vs. value. it is just simply fall and hit your head crazy. do they have any concept at all of exactly what they are tearing down, the value that can not be measured by dollars or pesos or beads and trinkets? do these "demo rules" apply to houses outside of springfield?
i understand holding the property owners responsible for routine maintenance etc - but seriously, did i read it right that the one actually "started" it's road to doom when the city charged $187 for uncut grass!?!? SERIOUSLY??!! $187??
the house that was on the corner of 7th and perry had been burned and looked really bad, someone (don't know the history, just end result) came in, "bought it" and turned loose a group of ninja construction workers. they were stripping it completely down, replacing the bad wood etc and it was really taking shape, they were actually starting the roof when the city came in, and "shut it down" (they get real funny about not getting their pound of flesh for permits). and - long story short - it is now an overgrown empty lot. my biggest complaint about the whole thing wasn't that the city came in and shut down the work (i know, safety, code, blah, blah, blah) but the fact that they did so the day they were starting the roof!! they had obviously been watching the ninja's making quick work out of the house (work had gone on for quite some time), why the heck couldn't they wait until they put the roof on it? the house was SOLID, and had they let them finish the roof, it would most likely still be standing today. i guess the whole, common sense - it aint that common, thing comes into play.
cindi...........like you say "Common Sense" comes into play! IF the City had any......I do know this - Code Enforcement is phone call driven! I had a quick chat with one of them who just happened to come by Three Layers when I was there and I asked him! That little phone call starts the whole shabang! Rules need to be changed to allow houses to be at least mothballed for greener times and there is a group working on it! Talk to sheclown when you get the chance!
The important point here is that the policy needs to change.
Imagine that phone calls were made to your employer daily complaining about a situation that you had control over. What would you do? ...your job.
It has been SPAR's breathless panting to demolish historic buildings that code enforcement is responding to. Hell, they thought they were doing what the neighborhood wanted for goodness sakes.
So now we are left with bad policy that needs to be changed.
But honestly Sheclown, I think the only option Code sees and believes in is demolition. They eat, breathe, and sleep demolition. SPAR may well have helped this occur, but Code has taken it to a level that is out of control. They (Code) were given the go ahead (ED of SPAR supporting demos) and they are running with it. Time to look back.
Policy change: a screaming, whole hearted YES!!!!
I imagine Code believed they were doing what the neighborhood wanted them to do, taking care of safety issues and neglectful owners.
We can blame them all day long, but IMHO, they were doing what they were asked to do, plain and simple.
Quote from: sheclown on August 14, 2010, 10:28:11 PM
I imagine Code believed they were doing what the neighborhood wanted them to do, taking care of safety issues and neglectful owners.
We can blame them all day long, but IMHO, they were doing what they were asked to do, plain and simple.
Yes, we have heard that across the board. We are only doing what we are asked. The issue is this does not represent the neighborhood. I have lived next to vacant homes that were an issue, I am surrounded by vacant lots now- both are bad and not the solution, but at least with a house on the property there was hope. BTW, that vacant problem property was bought and renovated and is occupied now, who would have thought?
So let's hope, that if indeed they were doing what they were asked to do by the "neighborhood," that they also listen now and do what the REAL neighborhood wants: to preserve properly our historic structures.
I say it again. My house on Ionia sat for at least 10 years in abandoned blight. I'm glad I had an opportunity to save her. Had it been demolished like it was supposed to back in 2007. . . . .
The work cut out for us will be to voice what the neighborhood wants (ie. to protect its historic fabric) and to encourage the city to develop a better policy which balances the need for historic preservation with protecting public safety (one which does not involve eliminating the houses altogether.)
Surely, there must be room for a "Plan B."