Inside 113 E. 3rd St.

[NotNow]

is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.

Yep.  Same POS.

Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.

Great insight, guys. Very helpful.

Perhaps you should not read more into a statement than is there.  The statement went to the character of the owner, and did not involve the structure or it's future.  My verification of JohnP's question was intended to enlighten some about whom they are dealing with.  I believe that IS a valuble insight.  I (and I'm sure whoever JohnP is) wish you all the best in this endeavor.  But ignoring facts does no one any good.

[PeeJayEss]

is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.

Yep.  Same POS.

Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.

Great insight, guys. Very helpful.

It seems to me like JohnP is simply saying to take the (apparently new-found) sincerity of the owner with a grain of salt, not advocating for the destruction of a historic structure - particularly evident since he claims to have attempted purchasing the house.

Anyway, when was the fire? Is there something restricting the owner from doing the renovations right now (or at some point since the fire)? Does he have to go through the mothballing process first before he can start fixing the house? Is there something restricting his ability to do the fixes that would be required in order to mothball the house?

I don't know much about the process, so I am curious. One would think if the owner wants to fix the house, he would be able to.

[sheclown]

is this the same bill moates that chopped up all the houses, turned them into rooming houses, and packed them full of prostitutes and drug dealers? The same bill moates that ran drugs through those houses and then let them all fall apart? The same bill moates that got ran out ten years ago for all the trouble he caused? good riddance! By the way I offered to buy that house and the one next to it three years ago just to get him completely out of springfield but he wasnt interested in selling.

Yep.  Same POS.

Well clearly the solution is to punish the rest of us by destroying another historic structure.

Great insight, guys. Very helpful.

It seems to me like JohnP is simply saying to take the (apparently new-found) sincerity of the owner with a grain of salt, not advocating for the destruction of a historic structure - particularly evident since he claims to have attempted purchasing the house.

Anyway, when was the fire? Is there something restricting the owner from doing the renovations right now (or at some point since the fire)? Does he have to go through the mothballing process first before he can start fixing the house? Is there something restricting his ability to do the fixes that would be required in order to mothball the house?

I don't know much about the process, so I am curious. One would think if the owner wants to fix the house, he would be able to.

The mothballing process will allow him to fix up the house or sell it or whatever he chooses to do.  It will give him three years provided he addresses issues such as blight, safety, security.  If he monitors the house and keeps watch over it, the city will keep code enforcement from fining him or tearing down his house.

It is a win/win.  When he has finished doing what HPC will no doubt require, it will no longer be a blight to the neighborhood.  And while not lived in, it will be well on its way to restoration with its new lease on life.

[PeeJayEss]

The mothballing process will allow him to fix up the house or sell it or whatever he chooses to do.  It will give him three years provided he addresses issues such as blight, safety, security.  If he monitors the house and keeps watch over it, the city will keep code enforcement from fining him or tearing down his house.

It is a win/win.  When he has finished doing what HPC will no doubt require, it will no longer be a blight to the neighborhood.  And while not lived in, it will be well on its way to restoration with its new lease on life.

So it would b e theoretically possible for the owner to get a contractor there next week to start renovating the place, but the hold-up is basically financing? My question is basically: if the owner has the desire to do this restoration, why isn't it being done? Is it a money issue, or is there some regulatory reason why this work can't be done?

[sheclown]

Of course, PJs.  Throughout the entire process an owner can do more than merely mothball.  Mothball is just a safety net.  I don't know the owner's finances.  He doesn't need to prove financial hardship to mothball.  The economy, the state of financing, the state of ...well...real estate takes certain things for granted.

He may only need to mothball for 6 months or it may take him years and years to renovate.  Don't know.

Mothballing puts in place a mechanism for accountability for these old houses, protection from code enforcement's actions, and in the meantime securing the structure against further deterioration, vandalism, and the eyesore associated with blighted structures.

And mostly, demolition by bulldozers.  We can't forget that a demolition certificate of appropriateness was granted on this house in 2009, something that cannot be appealed at this point.  Code has permission to tear it down, anytime, except now, it is under mothball protection.

[Sigma]

PSOS is doing the right thing to save the house even though they have to deal with this POS.  They must act on faith to save the house.  I give it a .000000001% chance that he will restore it.  But hopefully, with the house mothballed, he will sell.

[iloveionia]

They must act on faith to save the house.

And there you have it.
It is not about the person, it is about the houses.
Thank you.  Spot on.
Save the houses.
Every last one of them.

[sheclown]

I found the minutes to the HPC meeting where this house was approved for the formal track by the commissioners.



Of interest in this first page dealing with this house (half way down on the first column of page 6)  is the fact that Joel refers to the owner as "she"   and "she had been taken advantage of by the investor"  and this is justification for "trying to get this approved for demolition"

[sheclown]

Mr. Case asks "Is there any reason why this house cannot be repaired before it gets that--"  and Ms. Lancaster responds "If you are looking at the pictures, it's been totally gutted and fired damaged"

[sheclown]

(that would be plaster on those walls)

[sheclown]

This is where Louise has concerns that the house is going to fall on something.

[sheclown]

This is an interesting page.  There is where Ms. Lancaster states  "so they're making arrangements, if the City will be the one doing the demolition, to make--because the City as a policy, if you come within six months of a demolition through the tax collector and all, they set up a payment plan you so you're not having to come out with all that money at one time.  And that's their intent with this structure because they said they can't afford it."

And this is where (after some confusion about the address) they vote to put this on the formal track.

[sheclown]

So, I'm totally confused when I read these because while I was meeting with Billy Motes, he told me how he wanted to save the house and the minutes refer to the owner as "she."

So, I find out by looking at the property appraiser's data base that the house was sold by Billy Motes to Lena Castro in 2007.  Lena then campaigned for its demolition and sold it back to Billy Motes in August of 2009.

Billy has no idea that this is on the formal track.

[sheclown]

This is the trial -- where sworn evidence was given against the structural stability of the house.

It is where the future was determined for this place.

The policies of 2009 have greatly determined the mess we are in today.

The formal track needs to be rescinded.  Any houses put on there need to be pulled off.  The decisions were careless by everyone concerned.

Code enforcement officers gave false testimony -- clearly the house is not gutted.

And according to the Office of General Council, these decisions are not eligible to be appealed -- too much time went by.

Remember how we begged for Patterson Apartments, but could do nothing because it was on the formal track?

And it came down.

Yes, 113 E. 3rd has a chance because of mothballing.  What about the others?

[iloveionia]

The policies of 2009 have greatly determined the mess we are in today.
The formal track needs to be rescinded.  Any houses put on there need to be pulled off.  The decisions were careless by everyone concerned.

Agree.