As reported today in Building Cincinnati, demolition has taken place on 2 of the 4 Bank street Houses, some of the oldest structures in the West End/Dayton street area. http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/05/half-of-bank-street-buildings-down.html
This was not only a loss for the Dayton Street area and West End but a loss for this city as well. These properties are gone and with them part of our History. We now have vacant lots worth less than the properties that stood on them and the city tax base further shrinks. As a taxpayer you should be concerned. You should be outraged that your history is being demolished and your city government doesn't care and allows it to happen.
The mayor does not care, the city council does not care. Were there any council people involved trying to save these structure? NO. Was our "Illustrious Mayor" who claimed to care about the history of this city involved ? NO. I got an email from one of the flunkies in his office re-iterating the 'commitment' of the mayor to our historic city" after I contacted him. Some 'commitment" Mr Mayor.
What little effort there was to try to negotiate to save a part of this cities history was a few local residents and a few preservationists trying to find a buyer willing to work with a city government that does nothing but throw roadblocks up at preservation efforts and whose mantra is Blight=Bulldozer.
In ANY other city these properties would have been saved. The city would have denied demolition permits and would be going to court trying to save these buildings. Attempts would have been made to find grant monies to acquire them. Facade grants would be offered. Tax abatement would have been promised, New sidewalks would have been put in that block. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would have been done by a city to save these 140 yr old structures.
But not Cincinnati. whose city government is "thrilled" every time they get more CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) monies so they can go bulldoze some more properties on their ever growing list. The council doesn't adequately fund buildings and inspections so they can work with property owners to maintain properties and not let things get in this situation. We don't even have a full time housing court!
No, its is far easier to throw a VBML at it and force the owner to bulldoze it or wait for those CDGB monies and do it with taxpayer money that should be used for things like Facade Grants, paintup/fixup programs, sidewalks and neighborhood improvements.
When Hurricane Hugo hit Charleston SC, I was there, I bought a house and brought it back to life, I watched as everyone around me brought back homes that many thought were to "far gone" to save. I worked with others to see that historic homes in "disadvantaged neighborhood' got their share of funding. I watched a city 'restore' itself, and reinvent itself, and today stands as one of the best examples of what Historic Tourism can do to attract business and create a multi million dollar viable economy largely based on historic tourism.
A few years ago when Katrina Hit New Orleans, I was sending back recommendations and specs for homeowners who were rebuilding from "fragments' of historic homes left after the region was decimated. I watched buildings and homes that were barely standing, carefully restored. There was no suggestion that we just bulldoze them and start over. The people of New Orleans understood that those old houses and buildings were part of what made New Orleans what it is and NOBODY was tearing their history down. They saved not only the Grand mansions, but the simple worker cottage shotguns, why? Because it was thier history and it was important!
So where is the outrage Cincinnati? I have challenged this city council to explain time an time again why we are using urban renewal models that have FAILED miserably everywhere they were used and the vast majority of Urban Planners have abandoned. Has ANYONE on the council got back to me on several open letters challenging them to explain this policy? NO. I have offered this blog space, read by a national monthly audience of 80,000 plus old house owners and preservation minded people to ANY MEMBER of the council or the MAYOR to defend and justify their "bulldoze mentality". I will again offer, Any takers out there? Any of you up for re-election care to tackle a REAL issue and take an actual STAND on something?
Elections are a great way to begin "Urban Renewal" maybe the way we "Renew" our city is to start with a new council? If the council doesn't care about the history of this city then lets make them history, because as I see it they have NO CLUE what they are doing. Urban Renewal with a bulldozer is a FAILURE, as is this council and this mayor!
Showing posts with label bank street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bank street. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Bank Street , Preservation: Eliminate the "Demo Loophole"
Thanks to Urban Cincy for valuable updates . http://www.urbancincy.com/2009/02/historic-bank-street-demolitions-update.html
These properties are in REAL DANGER of being lost forever and it calls to the need for a fundamental change in the way the city approaches both enforcement and permits.
Everyone agrees that "Minimum Standards" for building maintenance are in the best interests of the public good. The city notifies property owners that they are not in compliance and can take the necessary legal steps to see property owners maintain their property. Many of us in the Preservation community would argue that the standards are not strong enough but that is another argument for a later day.
For all the city's good intention, they basically leave open a huge loophole that "slumlords" can drive through and circumvent maintenance of historic buildings. The loophole is allowing a property owner to simply pull a demolition permit and tear the building down.
Cincinnati is one a a very few cities I know that allow a property owner to pull a demolition permit to tear down a property themselves. We allow a property owner who may not have any construction, much less, demolition background to rent a bulldozer and tear down a building! Often these buildings are Manually demolished or disassembled taking months to complete. During this time there is no security fencing and often no insurance in case a child were to wander into this attractive nuisance and be injured. Not to mention that the Urban Density of Cincinnati often meant you have adjacent attached buildings or home so close that miscalculation could result in damage or potential injury to people next door.
Will it take some child killed injured or killed an one of these "do-it-yourself" demolition sites or
a house falling against a restored home next to it,for the city to wake up and realize the HUGE
legal liability that they city has created. Does the council believe that if someone is killed or injured that the family of the injured person will go after a property owner who pulled the permit , OR, will they go after the city that allowed an unskilled , unlicensed , person with no engineering background to get a permit?
The city loses ANY leverage they have when dealing with a difficult property owner. 'Threaten me with jail? FINE, I will just get a permit and tear the house down". It cost the city 7-12,000.00 to demolish a property and rarely does the city recover those costs.
If we close the "demo loophole" and allow a demolition permit to be pulled ONLY by a licenced general demolition contractor who must post a bond with the city to protect the city, then the city has real leverage.
The property owner is then looking at spending THOUSANDS in demolition costs. This makes"fixing' the property the better solution, and the city has real leverage against property owners who simply don't care about properties once they have been milked dry.
Demolition must also be a two step process. Demolition is a ZONING CHANGE and directly affects the assessed value of that property but also affects the property value of the neighborhood. Instead of a house assessed at 10K we have a vacant lot assessed at 1K. If a zoning change were required for a demolition permit, Community council would be notified.
Personally I would like to see those seeking a demo permit to submit engineering reports prior to obtaining a permit on a property more than 100 yrs old and that report be reviewed by Historic preservation.
The Bank Street properties illustrate why this system is broken and why the council needs to adopt meaningful ordinance and permit changes.
These properties are in REAL DANGER of being lost forever and it calls to the need for a fundamental change in the way the city approaches both enforcement and permits.
Everyone agrees that "Minimum Standards" for building maintenance are in the best interests of the public good. The city notifies property owners that they are not in compliance and can take the necessary legal steps to see property owners maintain their property. Many of us in the Preservation community would argue that the standards are not strong enough but that is another argument for a later day.
For all the city's good intention, they basically leave open a huge loophole that "slumlords" can drive through and circumvent maintenance of historic buildings. The loophole is allowing a property owner to simply pull a demolition permit and tear the building down.
Cincinnati is one a a very few cities I know that allow a property owner to pull a demolition permit to tear down a property themselves. We allow a property owner who may not have any construction, much less, demolition background to rent a bulldozer and tear down a building! Often these buildings are Manually demolished or disassembled taking months to complete. During this time there is no security fencing and often no insurance in case a child were to wander into this attractive nuisance and be injured. Not to mention that the Urban Density of Cincinnati often meant you have adjacent attached buildings or home so close that miscalculation could result in damage or potential injury to people next door.
Will it take some child killed injured or killed an one of these "do-it-yourself" demolition sites or
a house falling against a restored home next to it,for the city to wake up and realize the HUGE
legal liability that they city has created. Does the council believe that if someone is killed or injured that the family of the injured person will go after a property owner who pulled the permit , OR, will they go after the city that allowed an unskilled , unlicensed , person with no engineering background to get a permit?
The city loses ANY leverage they have when dealing with a difficult property owner. 'Threaten me with jail? FINE, I will just get a permit and tear the house down". It cost the city 7-12,000.00 to demolish a property and rarely does the city recover those costs.
If we close the "demo loophole" and allow a demolition permit to be pulled ONLY by a licenced general demolition contractor who must post a bond with the city to protect the city, then the city has real leverage.
The property owner is then looking at spending THOUSANDS in demolition costs. This makes"fixing' the property the better solution, and the city has real leverage against property owners who simply don't care about properties once they have been milked dry.
Demolition must also be a two step process. Demolition is a ZONING CHANGE and directly affects the assessed value of that property but also affects the property value of the neighborhood. Instead of a house assessed at 10K we have a vacant lot assessed at 1K. If a zoning change were required for a demolition permit, Community council would be notified.
Personally I would like to see those seeking a demo permit to submit engineering reports prior to obtaining a permit on a property more than 100 yrs old and that report be reviewed by Historic preservation.
The Bank Street properties illustrate why this system is broken and why the council needs to adopt meaningful ordinance and permit changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)