1325 Laura -- demolition hearing at HPC

[Timkin]

Making owners accountable for letting structures like this one fall into such disrepair (other than code-enforcement racking up money )  would probably do wonders to making such owners do necessary repairs or board-up .  I still fail to understand how a property owner can let their building go like this .  

Sincerely wish I could help with securing buildings such as this one, which should definitely NOT be destroyed.. This house is VERY savable.  If the owner cannot or will not , they should pretty much GIVE the property to someone who would.

This is a haunting reminder of the Tarpon properties that are falling into the same type of demise ,and they as the owners , not made accountable .   Typically, as far as I know, homeowners are REQUIRED to keep their structures in reasonably good repair.   I hope this is not another property that ends up "mysteriously" catching fire.  

As with all of the historic buildings that have been razed over the decades , the ones that are endangered as we speak, there was/ IS no good reason to demolish them.  If we have lost 500 (appx) historic homes to this same type of scenario,  I feel about these just as I do about the ones I have been so closely involved in.  NO MORE... FIND a way to save them....and there is a way.

Stephen made a very good and absolutely factual point.. the materials of these structures are such that is no longer commonly used in modern construction, which is why they have lasted , despite neglect.  Save them !  We have lost way too much of our history already.

[sheclown]

There is "demolition by neglect" on the books where the city can go after owners who neglect their properties; however, the ordinance doesn't really have any teeth.

[Timkin]

I was not sure of the consequences of "Demolition by Neglect"  but was fairly sure that whatever it was/ is , is not enough...  As evidenced by many of these structures that are the subject of discussion and  One building ,in particular I have watched crumble throughout my life and wondered why there was no accountability for that being allowed to happen...

[sheclown]

Anyone know what other cities do?

[iloveionia]

I was told by HPC that in one case of demolition by neglect the owner was forced to rebuild the house. The minimum fine is $10k.
It may not have teeth, but it has been done.
Should be done more.

[Timkin]

That would be a start.... Imagine(assuming that case of DBN forced the owner to rebuild the house in that case)  what it would cost the owners of , say PS #4 to put it back to at least the state it was in at the time of acquisition.  

No argument....vandals took their toll on that building.. but basic Building Maintenance / Neglect is why there is no longer an Auditorium roof on the building...and why there are holes in various other places in the roof and soft spots, where , potentially one could actually fall through the roof.  If that roof had been replaced when the School Board reports indicated it needed it.. 1960s-1970s  It would be a FRACTION of the cost to do it now..  School 4 is the poster child of "demolition by neglect"  .. No one could convince me that the foundation that bought it , at the time had no means, or could not come up with resources to at least make the building shed water.. and the ensuing damage done to the interior from water damage is a direct result of that negligence..  All ancient history now... It has another owner , now even not willing to secure the building , as evidenced by the city now having to hire a private company to do that.....when it gets done, which is not often from what I have observed.  

There needs to be much stricter enforcements to property owners, so that we do not have these multitudes of buildings, now awaiting an uncertain fate and City Management/ Code enforcement , apparently chomping at the bit, so to speak , to demolish them.  It is not right, it is not fair and it should be extinguished to continue these guidelines for these historic properties.

With that said, PS #4 is not relevant to this particular building, but the similarities are too much alike to ignore.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Stephen made a very good and absolutely factual point.. the materials of these structures are such that is no longer commonly used in modern construction, which is why they have lasted , despite neglect.  Save them !  We have lost way too much of our history already.

If you're referring to SYP support members, you would be wrong.   

The 'guts' of today's homes are just as strong if not stronger as the homes built yesteryear.  There is one defining difference - the on-grade slab. 

Slab-on-grade foundations are commonly used in areas with expansive clay soil, particularly in California and Texas. While elevated structural slabs actually perform better on expansive clays, it is generally accepted by the engineering community that slab-on-grade foundations offer the greatest cost-to-performance ratio for tract homes. Elevated structural slabs are generally only found on custom homes or homes with basements.

The fact that people tend to overlook is that the homes in Springfield, Riverside, Murray Hill, Durkeeville were all tract homes.  They were all 'planned' subdivisions.  Crews would go from one house to the other to the other, just like it is today.  The difference is the foundations. 

A slab foundation has no give.  When it moves, it cracks.  Wood stays alive.  The beams in a 120 yr old home are still 'alive.'  They flex and warp and twist and bow and swell and shrink as they de & re-humidify year after year, season after season.  A concrete slab - shears.  There is no give.  Give me a pier and beam structure anyday.

[sheclown]

The size and the srength of the wooden timbers used cannot be matched today.  There was a time when a 2 X 4 was actually 2 X 4.

[urbaknight]

There is "demolition by neglect" on the books where the city can go after owners who neglect their properties; however, the ordinance doesn't really have any teeth.

The law only applies to struggling families, not those who actually have the means to fix up their structures. They only go after the little guy when they have a problem with private property.

[PeeJayEss]

If the city (or whatever government entity) demolishes a building, do they then own the land?

[iloveionia]

No.
The land (not the owner,) then has a demolition lien tied to it. 

[PeeJayEss]

No.
The land (not the owner,) then has a demolition lien tied to it. 

And the owner of the land with the destructed structure still owns the land?
I would think if you don't maintain your building such that it needs to be demolished, you should lose your right to that land.

[iloveionia]

Yes. The owner with the destructed structure still owns the land.
The title incidently has a lien on it from the city.

[sheclown]

The city is extremely reclutant to seize private property.

[urbaknight]

Coming soon to Laura st, Surface parking!!!