The "Big Picture" of Cincinnati Demolition Policy: Part 4

In other posts in this series we have detailed the issues, talked about how the demolitions happen and how we got to a situation we are in. Today I'd like to discuss how other cities deal with these issue and how Cincinnati can learn from other approaches.


Cincinnati is not unique with a vacant property problem. Many city's' have similar problems but their approach is different and that is something we need to learn from and adopt.


Cincinnati Government leaders have a"bulldoze mentality' they believe the quickest way to solve the problem of "blight" is to take bulldozer and knock it down. It is known in urban planning circles as the "Detroit Model" of Urban renewal and just about every city and urban planner has long abandoned that approach. The "Detroit Model" was that if you bulldoze or "clear' blighted neighborhood that new development would move in. The problem was that in bulldozing historic architecture the city lost one of its main draws and the "back to the city' movement that has been so successful in Cities like Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville passed by Detroit.

Businesses look at a variety of things when deciding to expand or relocate. Today one of those key 'quality of life' issues is close Urban neighborhoods that will appeal to younger workers who consider their time as valuable and do not want to spend hours in long commutes. Cincinnati has successful neighborhoods like that , Columbia Tusculum and Mt Adams but there is not enough neighborhoods like that for Cincinnati to compete with other major Midwestern cities for new business.


In MOST cities, the idea of bulldozing a 100 year old house would be met with packed city council meeting, cries of outrage, editorials in the newspapers and lawsuits and injunctions. Most cities have realized the value of these properties and would not think of bulldozing them. While other cities are getting it right and growing their Urban neighborhoods we are still following the 30 year Old Detroit model.


If you look at New Orleans after Katrina, they made extraordinary efforts to save their old buildings. Small shotgun cottages and camelbacks cottages were carefully lifted from their foundations, reinforced and rebuilt. Many were literally reconstructed when only one wall remained. WHY? Well New Orleans realized years ago that their historic architecture was
their "hook'. The city has created thousands of jobs in the Historic Tourism and hospitality industry.

Those quaint historic neighborhoods are a major attraction to companies who are deciding to relocate there. That combined with lively entertainment and shopping districts give New Orleans an edge over other cities in that region.


The same can be said of Charleston SC after Hugo. The aftermath of Hugo allowed that historic city to embark on a mission to restore its historic structures. Neighborhoods that had been on
hard times benefited from Federal disaster monies. Charleston has some of the highest properly values in the nation and one of the most stable real estate markets because its historic architecture is so highly valued. Historic Tourism is a multi million dollar industry there.


Other cities are dealing with blighted properties so looking at how they do it may give us insight into ways to improve. Most cities take a "holistic" approach to blighted properties. They also deal closely with neighborhood associations and community leaders who funnel key issues to inspections. They use a 'targeted approach' rather than a hit and miss one.


Indianapolis for example will do "problem property sweeps'. Under these sweeps several properties, perhaps an entire block will be inspected. Its not just building inspections, the health department inspects, the police department is there (in case illegal activity is spotted and for security) CPS may be on call. Using this technique the city has been able to shut down problem properties. Get them into responsible hands and turnaround neighborhoods.


St Louis works closely with Neighborhood block units, concerned teams of area residents who volunteer their time to help the city identify problem properties. Sometime these issues can be resolved by these block units by contacted a property owner or pointing a tenant in a problem property to a resource. St Louis has a broader definition of nuisance property that includes: sales of drugs, excessive noise/disturbing the peace, prostitution or gang activity, firearms, open buildings and zoning violations such as auto repair work or non permitted home businesses.


A suspected nuisance is reported to the Citizen Service Bureau. A designated reporter can be a police officer, Alderman, group of 3 or more residents, or the Neighborhood Stabilization Officer.


The reported nuisance is referred to the Director of Public Safety who will assess the emergency nature of the situation. If the conditions are determined to be of an immediate danger to residents or neighbors, the Director will refer the situation immediately and bill the detailed costs of abatement (correction or repair not bulldozing) to property owner.

If the reported nuisance is not an emergency, the situation is forwarded to the Neighborhood Stabilization Team's Problem Property Coordinator who compiles detail regarding the case to be submitted for review by a Special Committee meeting every 2 weeks. The Special Committee consists of the Director of Public Safety or representative, the Building Commissioner, the Director of Neighborhood Stabilization and the Citizen Service Bureau, an Assistant City Counselor and the Problem Property Coordinator.


The property owner is given no more than 30 days to abate the nuisance. If the owner fails to correct the situation, the case is referred for a hearing.


Penalties will include the cost of the abatement process, making the cost of the nuisance abatement a special assessment against the property to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as real property taxes. The special assessment is subject to the same penalties in case of delinquency as provided for real property taxes. Furthermore, fines will be assessed of no less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 for each day the owner or tenant remains in noncompliance. In addition to a fine, the court may sentence the property owner to not more than 90 days imprisonment, and/or vacate the building, condemning it for occupancy for a period of up to one (1) year.


Note: properties are condemned for occupancy but they are not bulldozed!


The City of Raliegh, NC deals with problem properties in a unique way when it comes to rentals they tie violation to retaining a property rental permit that isrequired by law to rent out a property in that city. The vast majority of all problem properties are rentals.


For housing and nuisance issues, a period of time will be allowed for the property owner to bring the property into compliance. If the property owner fails to do this within the allotted time, a civil penalty will be imposed. In some cases, the nuisance will be taken care of by the City and billed back to the property owner; the property owner will be required to obtain a probationary rental occupancy permit (PROP) for that unit. The PROP will remain in effect for two years, when it will expire if no further violations occur at the same property. If further violations occur, much higher fines will be imposed and the property owner’s ability to rent the unit may be withheld for up to a two-year period. Landlords who have a pattern of repeat citations at a rental property also must obtain the permit.


The Raleigh City Council adopted the probationary rental occupancy permit ordinance to reduce the likelihood that tenant-occupied housing accommodations will become public nuisances in violation of City codes. This program promotes responsible management of tenant-occupied housing. Assist in providing a safe habitat for residents and neighbors of tenant-occupied housing,
Safeguard property values. Reduce the likelihood that unsafe or unfit housing will exist or be occupied and, expedite the repair of residential housing accommodations where code violations occur.

The City of Raleigh’s regulations, including the PROP, are designed to encourage the property owner to comply with regulations. If a property owner is actively working to resolve the problem, City inspectors will attempt to work with them. But if the property owner chooses not to respond to correcting violations, the PROP ordinance gives the City the ability to remove the property owners’ right to rent the unit.


Clearly a pattern of early intervention and aggressive enforcement and REAL PENALTIES work. We need to adopt a more aggressive , proactive stance utilizing community leaders as our eyes and ears so overworked inspectors can deal with priority issues form the neighborhood.


Next Time: Final part what this all means and how we move forward.

The "Big Picture" of Cincinnati Demolition Policy, Part 3

Last time we looked at the devastating financial effects that demolition puts on our County Tax base, and how reduction in that base caused by demolition threatens to ultimately result in raises in property tax rates or increases in special Levy's to cover operating costs of various projects.

In this part we will look at the history of the cause the decline of Cincinnati Urban Neighborhoods that fostered the "Blight=Bulldozer" mentality of our city government and leaders.

In looking at one of the "causes' of neighborhood decline, sometimes it isn't 'politically correct' to state some of the "real reasons" for community decline but in order to understand the problem we have to look at the underlying reasons that got us there. Cincinnati is not unlike other cities in some of these respects, but how we handled the problem led to much of the reason we are why we are where we are at.

For years Cincinnati , just like every other major American city dealt with the issue of low income housing in pretty much the same manner. We built housing projects. Completed in the 1930s and 1940s, the Laurel Homes and Lincoln Court projects were built by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority under the New Deal housing programs, initially for defense workers and their families. But eventually transitioned into what we called "public housing". It was the second largest Public Works Administration public housing project in the country

The Cincinnati housing projects were torn down under HUD’s Home ownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere VI (HOPE VI) program, passed in 1992. Initially billed as a measure to “revitalize severely distressed public housing,” HOPE VI was turned primarily into a demolition program. In the mid-90s Congress repealed the one-for-one replacement requirement, whereby every public housing unit demolished had to be replaced, and HUD, led by Clinton appointee Andrew Cuomo, son of the former New York governor, embarked on a program to demolish 100,000 public housing units by 2000. In Chicago alone, 40,000 units were destroyed.
According to HUD, the HOPE VI program is designed to reduce concentrations of poverty and African Americans, by encouraging a greater income mix in public housing projects and nearby neighborhoods.

Housing advocates will point out, HUD’s efforts to de-concentrate poverty did not translate into de-concentrating wealth, i.e., building affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods, did not generally happen. In the affluent suburbs that surround Cincinnati, for example, real estate developers, politicians and well-to-do homeowners used “exclusionary zoning” to prevent the building of apartments and smaller, affordable homes, thereby excluding the poor and minorities and keeping property values high. NIMBY( Not in my back Yard) meant that existing working and middle class neighborhoods would take the poor.

Federal housing assistance programs began during the Great Depression to address the country’s housing crisis. caused by those out of work flocking to major American cities looking for work.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government created subsidy programs to increase the production of low-income housing and to help families pay their rent,Congress passed the Housing & Community Development Act of 1974, which amended the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 to create the Section 8 Program. In the Section 8 Program, tenants pay about 30 percent of their income for rent, while the rest of the rent is paid with federal money.

Over the years the demolition of public housing and the expansion of Section 8 resulted in the 'emptying out' of the 'projects' and relocation of those people to the to the mostly western areas of town like Price Hill, Fairmount and Westwood. As well as the Northside, Mt Auburn, Walnut Hills. and parts of Avondale.

One can argue the merits of the Section 8 program in Cincinnati and the way certain areas seemed to be "targeted' but the facts are that the changes in public housing and Section 8 happened about the same time as greater expansion of suburban areas. Also many 'long term' residents of these areas who were working and middle class who bought in these areas after
WW2 were dying off. The children of these family members were attracted to the "new shiny suburbs' and prices in those neighborhoods were still substantial allowing them the ability to move to the "far burbs". Cincinnati retracted again population wise as Urban Sprawl took over and people moved farther and farther out.

If one looks at the "Market Value History' of housing in the auditors records for areas like Fairmount, Price Hill and Westwood and if you recall one of the houses we talked about yesterday on Tremont that is set for nuisance hearing, houses in Fairmount as late as the early 2000's were typically selling in the 50-80,000.00 range. Those were the typical home prices in the area because there was still significant owner occupancy, and most of the Mixed-use buildings were still owner occupied or the owner lived in the same neighborhood, they were in. These were still "neighborhoods" of people who knew each other, and had common history.Until the "projects' were emptied out, these were considered safe, clean desirable neighborhoods. The "average market price" in South Fairmount has gone from the 70K range down to 10-12K and it is not at all unusual for houses (mostly foreclosures) to sell for as little as 3-4,000.00 dollars. This has resulted in the loss of MILLIONS of market value in these neighborhoods, huge loss in the city's property tax base and fostered an attitude among certain city officials that "No one would want to live there". Never mind that these Urban areas contain architecturally, some of the finest housing in the city that, despite being mistreated over the last decade, are still very restorable and close to the downtown business center.

When those who were in "housing projects" were suddenly displaced and moved into unfamiliar
neighborhoods there were no programs to assist them with transition. What was 'acceptable' in the housing project, where grounds were taken care of by the government, these types of services were non existent in section 8, nor was section 8 really a transition program to home ownership. Many landlords who were originally attracted to the Section 8 program did so because of the 'guaranteed rents' but they were not equipped to handle the higher maintenance costs created by people who didn't care where they lived or actually resented being 'forced out' of the projects were where they had grown up with family and friends.

There was significant lack of maintenance and older properties which had been well maintained by owner occupants for decades, quickly declined under "absentee landlords" who suddenly found themselves with major monies to expend to maintain these homes. Many left the Section 8 program but were "stuck' with homes that couldn't be certified again for Section 8 without huge expenditures. The owner occupant residents who were still left had seen their property values plummet in less than 5 years. Many houses sat vacant and a new kind of landlord came into the picture.

These buyers were attracted by cheap readily available subprime mortgages and super low real estate prices in those areas. In the early 2002-2004 this gave rise to a new kind of owner.The out of state "investor types' and local slumlords who thanks to subprime lending could expand their property portfolios. These owners were interested in only one thing Buy cheap and "milk' the property for whatever you could get. When that was done, simply walk away. Tenants were not screened and many with criminal backgrounds moved in giving rise to spikes in violent crime and drugs.

This led us to 2007-09 and the latest foreclosure glut that hit these neighborhoods and now many urban neighborhoods are seeing a new kind of buyer, the "New Urbanists" who now represent maybe 20 percent of home sales in these areas . The New Urbanists are a combination of basically 3 groups, some are "20 somethings" for whom close proximity to downtown area is key. These are the people who grew up in suburbia and have no intention of living the way their parents did. The second group are Empty Nestor's who see opportunity in many of the small homes in these areas as the right size homes of their time in life, they have money and can well afford the cost of restoration but do not want to pay the high prices in "premium areas" like Mt Adams or Columbia Tusculum because they want a substantial cushion for retirement. The third group are Historic Preservationists and Old House Enthusiasts, some who have already restored in areas like Clifton and Mt Adams and are looking for their "next neighborhood' to transform. Many are from out of state who realize the real value in Cincinnati's Historic Architecture and see the opportunity to buy their 'dream house' for pennies on the dollar of what they would have paid back in their old state.

The problem with our current city government, and its not just a Cincinnati thing, is that city governments are slow to see trends and be able to react to them. The city is still pursuing
a "reactionary model" to the way things were 5-7 years ago. They do not see the "new money"
moving into these urban neighborhoods and wont see it until 2010 census numbers come in and population and people with household incomes in the 6 figure range start showing up in places like Fairmont and Price Hill.

Another part of the problem is also fostered by some community council leaders who are also slow to see changes in neighborhood and are still asking for demolition monies to be spent in their neighborhoods.

While there will likely still be battles with the out of state Investor type/slumlord contingent
over the next few years, there appears to be 'seed change' in the way many now look at Urban neighborhoods and the city needs to adjust current policies and stop treating "Minor problems" like gutters or porch railings, with the "Major surgery" of demolition. The 'well monied, well educated, New Urbanists are able to organize and to fight the slumlords but need city cooperation, not obstacles of having to fight the city government to save properties that they see as "opportunities in the rebirth" of these Urban Neighborhoods. They are also willing to invest in these neighborhoods and attract others to them.

Next time: How other cities are proactive and 'get tough' with problem property owners. Soluntions we can learn from.

The "Big Picture" of Cincinnati's Demolition Policy: Part 2

In an act of perfect timing I received the October 30 notice of the Nuisance hearing list yesterday. This list includes 21 properties (sometimes there are more, rarely less) that the city deems worthy of a nuisance determination and demolition. These hearings are typically held monthly.

The properties are city wide, Some in Fairmount, OTR, Price Hill, in Walnut Hills. These properties are a variety of architectural styles and in review of the photos from the auditors office only 1 property of the 21 was newer and "Non contributing" meaning it was too new to have contributing historical value to its neighborhood. 1 other property, that would be considered historic had a serious fire and is an essential total loss.

1563 Tremont, the grey Italianate townhome pictured here, is typical of the homes on this list. Sold in 2002 for 71,000.00, before fairmount became a Section 8 dumping ground, it became a rental and went through a succession of owners and tenants. The first orders appear to be in 2004 and are the usual 'deferred maintenance" issues that occur with a rental property.

It was dumped back on the bank in 2007 and sold to TC Funding for $4500. TC Funding is a regular buyer of distressed properties in Cincinnati. According to the auditors records Nine properties at the moment in Hamilton County, a cross check shows all 9 properties have "issues" and most have delinquent taxes. In fact TC Funding currently owes 7,970.99 in taxes to the county, the vast majority delinquent. This is normal for these types of property owners. They buy the property from the bank, do not pay taxes and rent the property out for as long as they can, for ungodly high rents to people who can't qualify for section 8 or do not have good credit until it winds up sold for taxes.

Low overhead. Keep it rented and "milk' the property for all its worth. Of course, maintenance costs money and the less you do the better the profit margins. "Investor types" like TC Funding love Ohio because it is one of only a handful of states that do not require that ALL delinquent property taxes be paid BEFORE a deed can be recorded! "Investor types' and 'slumlords' tend to stay away from states that require delinquent taxes be paid to record a deed, it also makes it easier to "shift" ownership in a 10 dollar transactions to another "Paper LLC" thereby avoiding building inspection hearings. It is interesting to note, because of this practice, several states have now enacted legislation that makes it illegal to buy a foreclosed property IF the owner has orders against any other property.


Not all properties fall in this type of owner, but the vast majority on the list do, some had "probate issues, one was a 'seized property' and some have already had the delinquent taxes sold. Over 90 percent of the properties on this list need repairs like gutters or downspouts , maybe need securing, some for failure to get a VBML. Not real 'structural issues' that you would think of when talking about demolishing a property, These are not emergency demolitions required because of a structural problem that endangers homes around it. These are 'nuisance demolitions' , basically generated by over worked inspectors who are "fed up"dealing with a property owner, or they have the neighbor on their case and they actually get 'lucky' and can track down an owner to serve them with legal notice of a hearing.


Some are actually on the market and for sale like this home at 928 Nassau, no doubt an architect designed brick and rusticated stone Romanesque Mansion in Walnut Hills on the market for 28K. often it is the fact that a property has orders or an VBML (vacant building maintenance license) that will keep a person from buying, especially if a similar house down the street is off the radar and happens to not have a complaint. No city red tape to deal with. If all the properties on this list are "affirmed" as a "public nuisance" we are looking at the addition of 21 properties to the Cincinnati demolition list. It is rare for a property to be "saved' at this point. Even though someone with time and money could restore almost any of these homes.


To put it the magnitude of this senseless demolition in perspective. Not including all the manhours by city inspectors, the reviews by managers, research by staff and legal to find owners of record. It typically cost thousands just to abate and demo a small house. Ultimately the city will spend on average between 10,000 to 15,000 each, much more on the larger ones, or between 210,000 and 300,000 to demolish just this list of houses.


REAL DOLLARS NOT SPARE CHANGE: According to the Hamilton Auditors Office and per the 2008 assessment, the "market improved' value of the 21 properties on this list was an incredible $1,081,510.00 Dollars! In researching this piece, actually more, as two properties had errors on the description and don't show up on the auditors site and one property is part of a multi property site and I had to 'prorate' the value of just one building.


So the City of Cincinnati wants to demo 21 properties worth, according to the county, well over a million dollars, spend between 210,000.00 to 300,000.00 dollars of taxpayer monies doing it and the end result will be 21 vacant lots (parcels) worth a typical valuation of around 2000.00 each or a mere 42,000.00 for the group!


Overall the loss of 1,039,510.00 of taxable valuation to the county at a cost of between 210,000 to 300,000.00 by the city. It should be noted that typically the city never recovered the demolition costs as they don't bother to actually file a demolition recovery lien because the city doesn't want to file the lien for fear they will get "stuck" with a vacant lot.

However the end result is the current property owner, who never maintained the house will not maintain the vacant lot, which has zero value to them now. Neighbors or neighborhood Associations then complain to the city about an overgrown lot or illegal dumping with the end result 21 vacant lots that will be overgrown in the summer and will ultimately require our city tax dollars to cut and keep clean. Some councilmen have suggested that the city actually file those liens and the city obtain the lots and give them to adjacent property owners or neighborhood groups (who would actually pay some taxes on them) but that proposal has fallen on deaf ears at Building inspections and city legal. Ultimately in 3-5 years the city winds up with these lots and they can sit for years , being maintained by the city, before someone would buy them at a surplus property sale.


As Over- the- Rhine struggles to stop "Emergency Demolitions" , normal "nuisance demolitions' of the two properties on this list will likely put OTR at the 'tipping point' of 5o percent loss.


Bear in mind this is ONE MONTH list of Nuisance properties! If you extrapolate for the year we are adding at least 250 properties PER YEAR to our DEMO list and if they are all demoed ( at an ultimate cost eventually of 2-3 Million dollars), the county will lose over 12 Million Dollars of taxable property in a year. Gone forever from the tax roles as it could be years, or never, before the vacant ground is ever redeveloped. Over a decade? that is 120 MILLION dollars of market value property destroyed by a city government in a misguided effort to stop blight?To see what that looks like? Look at Detroit Michigan, literally bankrupt by a failed urban renewal model of "blight= bulldozer". Clear it and new development will come. It hasn't come to Detroit and almost every major city and urban planner has abandoned what has become known as the "Detroit Model' of urban renewal.

BUT NOT CINCINNATI!

The loss to our neighborhoods is huge. Every time a foreclosure trades hands and heads down the "slumlord path" property values go down for the entire neighborhood. Vacant lots do NOTHING to increase adjacent property values. While its true a vacant house dampens property value, if that property is restored it will increase values in the area. Often these properties are commercial mixed used properties that in addition to providing housing, they provide business (or could provide businesses to a neighborhood) and much needed jobs.

The net result to you and I the taxpayers? Increased taxes even though property values decline.. At some point property taxes rates will need to increase. Usually caused by increase in Levy's because the shrinking market value of the existing tax base (caused by all these demolitions) can no longer support the project. Less property at market value to tax= less taxes collected. Taxes for things like schools, the zoo, hospitals.As the demolition trend continues expect to see more levy requests.


At some point those of us left with homes will be required to pick up the slack. Higher property taxes will lead to a Cincinnati that is less competitive for new business, Cincinnati without viable Urban Neighborhoods, desired by younger workers who are not interested in 2 hour commutes who would rather bike, bus, or hop on a streetcar to work or shop.


Most importantly we look less like a Historic City and more like a "warzone" with block after block of vacant overgrown lots, less businesses move in and before we know it we ARE Detroit. Unchecked, the current policies of this city would result in the destruction of 3000 properties in the next decade and because many are multifamily or mixed use the loss of potentially 5000 units of housing! This becomes more that a "house here or there" it is the 'wiping clean' of entire neighborhoods. All the houses shown in the photos in this article, will be GONE FOREVER, unless we stop this misguided city policy.


By comparison, if the city actually filed liens for the basics that happen early in the decline of a property, liens for board ups, high weeds and such and went to court early in the process to obtain these homes. They could be placed into a city land bank or with local neighborhood, church or redevelopment groups that could fix them. Other cities take this approach with great success, being proactive is lost on our city government who complains about the lack of tax revenues and the need for 'belt tightening'.


A Cincinnati Land Bank along with passage of State level laws that requires delinquent taxes must be paid to record a deed would stop the 'slumlord shuffle' between LLC'c to avoid hearings in the first place and makes Cincinnati less attractive to speculators and more attractive to restorers who would see less slum property in their neighborhood to start with. We could get a handle on this problem which has been exacerbated by the foreclosure crisis. Passage of laws that would prevent purchasing a foreclosure if a property owner has open orders against a property. Or the passage of a law that makes it illegal to buy at tax sale a property if the buyer has delinquent taxes on other properties. All would slow the decline of problem properties.


Part 3 : Taxpayer outrage, solutions and a change of course.


SPECIAL NOTE: Being an election year discuss this issue with local candidates for council, make sure they know you have read this article an you are concerned about the direction this city is going and the need for serious change in the way we deal with problem property, out of state investors and the timely collection of property tax dollars.

Cincinnati: Change demolition proceedure to protect historic properties

In most major American Cities demolition of historic structures is not an easy process nor is moving of a structure or the "de-assembly" of a structure for re-erection outside city limits.

Most cities have come to the conclusion that historic properties add value to a city. It is often the reason someone chooses one city over another. The idea of removing a historic structure is just not done or it is a difficult process.

The problem in Cincinnati is that they have no consistent process. You pull a demo permit and your done. They do not even REQUIRE that the work be done by a licensed demolition contractor! Billy Bob, pickup truck, homeowner can take a crowbar, pick up a case of beer on the way home and demo a house! It has been amazing, given the closeness of construction in the urban areas of Cincinnati that no one has been killed!

What I, and some other preservationists in this city, hope to do is convince the city council to make some changes to the city code.

Many cities now have ordinances that prohibit the removal (moving) of historic structures outside the city limits, and only then, after public hearings and a majority vote by the city council. In order to protect our architectural history we need to do the same. I would propose the council adopt and ordinance that prohibits the removal of significant historic structure, structures within designated historic districts and any Landmarked or registry nominated structure. Based on what other cities ordinances are, it might read like this.

It shall be unlawful to move/ relocate or disassemble historic structures (Historic structure is defined by this ordinance as a structure over 100 years old. A structure less than 100 years old within a designated historic district or any structure that has been nominated for or is a landmarked registered structure) outside the incorporated city limits of Cincinnati, without a public hearing and a 2/3 approval by the city council.

We also need to address just how our demolition process works. It is far too easy to demolish a historic structure for a parking lot. This almost always represents a zoning use change and we need to have better process to address this issue.

Make building demolitions a two step process. First a "rezoning" process instead of a simple permit process. That way public hearings would have to be held. The petitioner would have to demonstrate why a structure needs demolition. For example the most common reasons for demolitions is "future expansion or future parking".

Often rather than demolish a historic structure it may ,make more sense to build surface lots at the front and back of a structure so that in the future it can be returned to residential use should needs change. We have all seen building demoed and sit for 5-10 years before anything is built. This represents a serious loss of revenue for the city and county as a vacant lot is taxed at a much lower rate than say a house.

In cases of what represents a "change of use" the permit fee structure should be increased to the amount of 3 years the change (loss) of tax revenues to the city/county. If say a house paid 2000.00 a year in property taxes and the property as vacant lot would only pay 200.00, the permit fee (tax surcharge) would be 3 times the difference (loss) in revenue to the city/county 1800.00 x3 =5400.00. So in addition to the permit fee this surcharge fee would be assessed to recover lost tax revenues. 1/2 of the surcharge dees could go into a fund for historic facade grants or paintup/fix up grants geared at low income or elderly homeowners who need assistance maintaining their homes. The other 1/2 of the fees could be directed to city inspections to hire additional staff.

Many cities have taken further efforts to ensure that vacant lots do not become unsightly dumping grounds and specify landscape buffer zones and often decorative fencing to prevent illegal dumping or parking. Cincinnati should do the same:

Any parcel that would remain vacant for more than 180 days, after a demolition permit has been awarded would be required to maintain a 10 foot "landscaped buffer zone" at the front of the lot, and install decorative fencing to prevent vehicular access to said lot. Failure in install the buffer zone or maintain it would result in the entire tax at the old rate due to the city.

What this does, is stop "speculators' who, banking on future development, buy houses and demo them hoping for future development opportunities and getting a "free tax ride' through reduced taxes. WE CLOSE A LOOPHOLE that presently rewards out of state speculators and punishes adjacent property owners.

Finally we need to dramatically increase fees for demolition (by 25 percent), and require that demolition only be done by a licenced, bonded, demolition contractor. The property owner will NOT be granted a permit if there are open repair orders against any other properties in the city OR that property owner has a VBML against a another property. This gives the city Leverage to make property owners come into compliance on ALL property they own.

The city should offer a rebate (reduced fee) if the property owner contracts for historic items to be salvaged prior to demolition, rather than landfilled and presents proof that that has taken place. This will save space in our landfills and encourage recycling of historic details that often just decompose in a landfill. This will help restoration efforts on other properties.

We need to have a NEW APPROACH, what we are presently doing doesn't work, causes a loss of revenue for the city and county and does not protect our Architectural Heritage.

3 Landmark Mansions in Eminent Danger: City Council Action Required

I just learned from Margo Warminski at CPA that these 3 mansions have been obtained by company called ResErection Inc a Cincinnati based company with plans to DISASSEMBLE them and resell them to builders anywhere in the world! http://www.reserections.com/


Among them 965 BURTON which is ON THE NATIONAL REGISTRY, designed by Samuel

Hannaford. a stone Romanesque mansion. The 8900 square foot mansion is being offered moved

and rebuilt on a new location for 2.8 million dollars

The 24 room Johnson Henry Bell Mansion 24 rooms for 2,950,000.00 in Walnut Hills
And this Georgian Revival Mansion for 2,650,000.00

This 'company' was responsible for the disassemble of the 1885 Kemper castle. Which is being rebuilt in Texas in 2010
These prices include shipment anywhere in the United States or to a shipping port.

There have been similar operation in other parts of the country that were largely stopped due to quick action by city officials enacting ordinances that prohibit the removal of historic properties from city boundaries or the moving of historic structures. Action is needed immediately by the council to stop this.

This activity represents the GREATEST DANGER to the historic architecture that this city has ever faced! Call or email you councilman, the mayor whomever but this has to be stopped!

Cincinnati historic structures MUST stay in Cincinnati. I have often said that we have the best architecture and unfortunately the best prices. This will be the proverbial tip of the iceberg if not stopped NOW!

Clifton Landmark faces Bulldozer

I received an email from Margo Warminski of Cincinnati Historic Preservation about this yesterday. The house at 2210 Ohio Avenue in Clifton Heights has been declared a public nuisance and is subject to demo by the City but, has not been put out to bid yet. The neighborhood didn’t know about it until yesterday,CPA was unaware as well. Both are scrambling to find a way to save it.

Apparently, the CUF Community Council is already in discussion with the City about starting a housing revitalization program that would target buildings like this. They’ve invited representatives from the South Park Historic District in Dayton, OH, to talk at their next meeting on Oct. 20 .

The house is believed to be one of the oldest in the neighborhood, built c. 1838 in the Greek Revival style and later enlarged and Victorianized. It’s on a choice site opposite Bellevue Hill Park. As far as anyone can tell, there is nothing structurally wrong with it.

Here’s the text of the nuisance decision (11/4/2008) from city records:

DECISION- A PUBLIC NUISANCE Based on the evidence received at the hearing and my personal observations, the porch ceiling is rotting and failing, there are supports for the porch which are missing and weakened causing a collapse hazard, the box gutters are deteriorated along the roof line, the sides of the building at the rear portion are showing signs of severe deterioration to the wood framing, the lot is overgrown with vegetation and the garages are in a deteriorated dangerous condition. The building in its current conditions does not meet the minimum standards for Vacant Building Maintenance license compliance as set forth in 1101-79.4 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code. For these and other reasons the building presents a fire and safety hazard to the community and therefore needs to be demolished.

So it is the city's intention to demolish a BRICK Landmark Historic structure because of deteriorated WOODEN porch, some weeds and a bad garage? INCREDIBLE!

The city system is clearly broken and it is only matter of time before someone with a good legal representation sues the city, wins and you and I, the taxpayers, wind up footing the bill.

In most cities, and in my capacity as a restoration consultant and community leader, I've worked with many city governments and I can tell you this would not happen in those cities. What would happen is the city would hire a contractor to perform "emergency stabilization" of the porch, cut the weeds, possible demo the garage and send a bill to the owner and if the owner chose not to pay, the city would go to court, seek enforcement of the mechanics lien and force a sheriffs sale or be awarded deed to the property. The city would then sell the property with first preference being given to Community Groups or local preservation organizations who might act as a selling agent for the city to find a suitable buyer. In the case of historic structure, there would be restrictive covenants placed on the property that it must be owner occupied and work be done to preservation standard and the buyer would be pre qualified financially.

The net result? The city gets its monies back, the property is sold to a RESPONSIBLE property owner and the home is returned to the tax roles.

Under the present system the city pays 15-20,000 to demo the property, makes a half hearted attempt to collect the monies (which RARELY happens), the neighborhood is stuck with a vacant lot and the loss of a historic contributing structure. Years later the vacant lot gets sold at tax sale and we have a "no win outcome" for a decade or more.

This has to stop. Not only should Historic Preservationists be outraged but EVERY taxpayer in the city should be outraged at the way this city, facing a financial crisis anyway, squanders money.

The city has an established legal precedent as they currently board structures when the owner refuses, making an "emergency repair" to a porch is no different.

It is time for city government to stop wasting money performing radical surgery (demolition) when a band aid is only required.

Historic Home endangered by junkyard development

If you have ever headed west on the Western Hills Viaduct you may have noticed this well kept, large "mansion sized" white brick up on the hill at 1407 Ernst Street just off State Steet. (photos courtesy Margo Warminski)

The Federal style home, built in 1866 is in fact not a mansion, but rather the servants quarters for a Mansion owned by Cincinnati Industrialist Andrew Jergen that once sat higher up the hill. In fact the home was purchased years ago from the Jergen family by its current owner.

This home and several smaller, but non-the-less architecturally historic homes, are endangered by the proposed junkyard developement currently under consideration nearby on piece of property zoned industrial.

If this gets built it is highly likely that this house and others around the facility will be lost. The Lower Price Hill Community Council is fighting the proposed development and local preservationists need to get behind the effort to defeat this proposed development as well. The proposed site is ill suited, regardless of its current zoning, for the proposed use. The junkyard would be injurious to the health, public safety and quiet enjoyment of nearby neighbors.

More importantly it would in my opinion be 'stepback' for the area. Given the views from this site of the downtown and Mill Creek valley. This property could in the future see a better use as residential development.

The council should respect the wishes of the Lower Price Hill Community Council, reesidents and other neighborhood groups ALL of which are gainst this kind of development and deny this request. The Ernst street property is an important part of Cincinnati History and should be preserved. The Jergen faimily was part of the 'sucess' of Cincinnati that occurred because of industrialists and entrpenuers with a vison. Its time for the council to acquire some of that vision and not "settle' for proposals that are ill advised.

Neighborhood Demo Watch: Updates

On Wednesday, the asbestos abatement contractors removed the 1930's era siding from the house at 2471 McBrayer. According to the contractors on site the house is scheduled for bulldozer on Monday.


What the removal of the siding revealed was exterior siding that was in very good shape. As I
suspected the house is a stick style Italianate underneath. You can also see evidence of the hinges for the period shutters the house once had. Although simple in form , in its day it was a very fine house.


To illustrate what this House "could ' have looked like I have done an front elevation showing the house restored with period appropriate paint and restoration of the shutters and front door back to its original locations. As you can see this would be a gracious townhouse redone.

The fight continues on the vacant lot issue that will remain. I sent emails to Councilman GREG HARRIS and City of Cincinnati Building inspections ED CUNNINGHAM to either provide me with contact at city legal or for them to request that the city pursue collection of the demo lien so that the vacant lot can be put into responsible, ( our) hands. I will post any response I get on this blog. Especially if anyone at city legal ever responds to the emails I have sent.


This demolition is senseless and only points to the continued FAILURE of this city on Historic Preservation issues.

Our 120 yr old neighbor, soon to be GONE!

They start asbestos remediation today on the house behind our Knox Hill cottage and I find myself with mixed feelings about it. The Historic Preservationist in me wants to save it. The practical side of me realizes it is too late. A bureaucratic decision made long before we came along and began the turnaround of our neighborhood.


In its day it was a once elegant Italianate Victorian home. Cast Iron and slate fireplaces adorned its formal parlors and bedrooms. It, like our house, was a simple summer/weekend place, but its owners installed the finery they were accustomed too. The property fell prey, like many in our neighborhood of changing times and changing perceptions. When the city emptied out the west end and OTR it became a rental and it like many in our neighborhood went into decline. It wasn't a bad house, it just had bad people living in it and a bad owner who didn't appreciate its once elegant grandeur. Eventually it went empty and that was in many ways it was it's death sentence. Neighbors complained about the overgrown weeds and the kicked in side door and the city deemed it blighted., citing some relatively minor foundation issues.


I once asked the city about those foundation issues and why a house would be slated for demo when all was really needed was for the tree planted too close to be removed and some minor stone work done. The response I got back was, "look, nobody is going to put money into that neighborhood! It isn't economically viable".



That mentality would have been the deathnell of our own cottage had we not come along. The city doesn't get it and frankly I wonder if they ever will. Maybe in a few years when the houses are worth 150-200K they might realize all they tore down would be productive, on the tax roles lived in by people with real income that pay taxes. The city wonders why it has a budget deficit? There are a couple of people in city government who do understand it but their hand are tied.



We could have saved this house but the timing wasn't right so we have resigned ourselves to its' demise and now we have a whole new challenge. We go from a blighted house to a blighted vacant lot. If you look at the "lag time " from the time weed infraction is turned it until it's actually cut. you are lucky if a house or lot gets cut once a year. This city does a miserable job in that respect. maybe they don't have the monies, maybe they think in a neighborhood like ours no one will complain and they can get away with it.



So essentially, the city fixes one problem and creates another. Some city councilman have said the city should get those lots into the hands of adjacent property owners who are willing to maintain them. The response was pursuing that lien takes money. BUT, if the city has to cut the lot for years, send inspectors out constantly, and the county gets no tax revenue, that costs money too. Neighborhood property values are lept lower and the city and county loses revenue. Logic dictates that getting those properties in the hands of responsible neighbors makes sense, even if it cost the city a little money to pursue the lien and obtain the property.


I have sent emails to city inspections about that and have gotten nowhere as of this point, they have referred me but no one else from the city ever responds.


What typically happens is the city demos a property and has spent about 8-12K by the time they are done. they file a lien but never take the property owner to court to try to get those costs back or at least gain control of the lot. Usually the property sits for years until it is sold at a tax sale, where it is sold , usually to a investor/speculator who doesn't maintain the lot and the neighborhood continues to suffer.


The bad act of a property owner who won't maintain his property is replaced by the bad act of a city that bulldozes that property leaving a lot that sits for years, that is eventually sold at tax sale to someone who lets it sits for year, the neighbors complain about the high grass and we start all over again with more legal problems. The neighbors, and the community suffers as a result.



I want to break that cycle. I want the city to pursue the lien get the lot and sell it to us as a reasonable price. That puts it on the tax roles. We also are willing to commit to fence the lot and landscape it so it doesn't become an over grown dumping ground. Below is what we would do. So if any of you have any connections downtown, we need to make this happen. We need to stop the cycle and the system, the way it is right now.


View from street with new parking area and privacy fence and landscape strip.
View inside fence looking west at new patios and gardens.
View inside looking back east at new patios and gardens.

OTR Peptalk. How things can change.

There has been alot said about recent proposals for changes to building codes, permits and inspection issues in OTR in an effort to help jump start the area and the indifference of city officials (Whom I hope all of will be voted out or fired after the elections) can be disheartening.


I was speaking to someone who is involved in OTR on the phone the other day and they asked y come here? The city doesn't give a damn, the investors have blocks of this neighborhood locked down? Why do it? why come to OTR? why Not stay in Indy where things are nice and restored ?"


And I replied to him, "If people don't come, nothing will happen. OTR and the city needs preservationist who have done this before, know how to sway public opinion AGAINST city officials who are in the way and know how to put pressure on the Investor types, who are sitting around doing nothing" Besides Indy is complete. All the really great buildings and neighborhoods are restored. Its time for new challenge.. I see the OTR you can't see because you are too close to the issue right now. I've done this before.


So my OTR peptalk. Indianapolis wasn't always known as one of the cleanest cities in the country with Museums and entertainment venues everywhere. The urban core of Indy was very much like OTR. Run down , abandoned buildings, drug dealing , homeless and prostitution. Not to say those problems still aren't around but they moved out of the city core.



Many people like to take credit for the Mass avenue turnaround. Credit where credit is due it was a few local preservationist and the gay community that began the Mass avenue turnaround. the first "Major" restoration on the upper end of Mass was the Metro at 707 Mass Ave. When the gay bar opened the community soon followed and the houses in Chatham arch were bought up by gay couples and preservationists who saw the value in the area. Before long there were 3 Gay Bars in the area and other bars and shops followed. Metro still is around today and upscale bar frequented not only by the gay community but local residents as well. The building features an incredible Victorian back bar and period interior finishes. They took the first financial risk and they deserve credit for that.



The building had a total top to bottom restoration and is still a focal point today.


Below: This is what the 700 block of Mass looked like in 1990, vacant abandoned.


Flash forward to today same block now filled with trendy shops.




Once Vacant historic buildings that many said should be bulldozed that no one would ever want:



Now High end shops and living spaces. Highly desirable and contributing to the taxbase.


An old closed Pawn shop:

Now one of the most Exclusive restaurants in town "Scholars Inn"


Back then non contributing structure and vacant lots:


Today Million Dollar condos and shops:



Were it not for preservationist and people with 'vision' who bought run down houses in Chatham Arch and Lockerbie, Mass Ave might not be here today. They got the ball rolling. Trust me there are a lot more people fighting for OTR than EVER fought for Mass Avenue in Indianapolis. We will see a revitalized OTR, its going to seem impossible but in a few years we will all look back and say, remember when?

Ooops! City Bulldozes a pending SOLD house

In the city of Cincinnati's never ending attempts to bulldoze everything in Fairmount before anyone can come along and buy it,the city bulldozed a pending sold house.

2547 Trevor Place was a cute Second Empire cottage that any historic Preservationist or anyone with any common sense would say was a cute house with potential. The house still had its original slate roof and brackets and would be an easy restoration for anyone experienced and with a love of old houses. Not to say the house hadn't seen a rough life. It was sold in 2006 and went into foreclosure in 2007 by DeutscheBank. The property was sold to NuLife Investments LLC in 2007 for 9000.00 NuLife is a California based LLC that according to records is at 11054 VENTURA, Studio city, California. The property shows 1455.00 in unpaid property taxes.

According to city records The property was declared a hazard but the records aren't clear: according to the order the deficiencies noted were CONDEMNATION Building condemned pursuant to Section 1101-63 CBC. The foundation wall is leaning on the right rear side of building. The rear foundation wall is bulging and cracked. The cornice on the rear is defective and falling off of building. Windows are broken and the building is open to trespassers and weather. The building lacks protective paint. There did not appear to be anything that was "beyond repair"

Apparently the was service but nowhere in the notes is it apparent that the city actually spoke with the owner. There is a notation that they sent orders on 4/26/2007 because the building was open and vacant. However it appears that the house may have been in DeutscheBanks hands by then. There are a number of notation of DeutscheBank's claim of non ownership. In any event they sold it to NuLife and because the city does not record a demo order or barricade cost there would be no lien that would show up on title search. Meaning NuLife was totally 'blindsided' by the condemn order they received on 2/28/2008. Imagine you just paid for a house, did a title search and found out you bought a condemned house! the house had been declared a nuisance on 8/09/2007 though the records indicate it was noted for hazard abatement on 5/22/2007.

Nu Life listed the property with a licenced Real estate agent. Donald Adams with Paramount Property management according to the MLS record 1170958. The remarks on the listing show it listed AS IS:

"Remarks :1356 square feet per auditor. Needs total make over sold in as is condition. Make offer."

Nowhere in the listing is it mentioned that the property is condemned and slated for demolition. The property had a status of PENDING on the listing meaning an offer had been accepted. I attempted to reach Mr Adams, the listing agent for comment, but was unsuccessful.. I wanted to find out if he was even aware the house had been demolished? And I wanted to know if the pending buyer had any reaction to the fact a house they had made an offer on and an acceptance of that offer had been demolished by the city.

Below are the sad results of ANOTHER PERFECTLY RESTORABLE HOUSE senselessly demolished because the city determined it was a "blight". One can but hope that someone sues somebody over this so the city is forced to record demo orders in the future so a buyer knows what he is getting himself into. We cannot afford the loss of any more historic architecture because of this cities misguided attempts to "save' us from Blight!

demo photos by Mark Elstun

Historic Preservation, Infill Construction and Architectural context

No that is not the Titanic bearing down on the elegantly restored angled Italianate corner building. It is however and example of how architecture, no matter how 'current or trendy' looks like crap when placed in the wrong context.

This new construction on this historic block in Indianapolis, is a luxury condominium project. It is also the cities first major "green roof" and its a shame that its also viewed by many as the "eyesore on Mass Ave'. The building totally overwhelms the circa 1880's historic architecture around it. Not surprisingly in this market, its almost totally empty! 23 units on the MLS right now with a 1800 sq ft "starter" unit at 499K up to a 4100 square ft unit at 1.6 million. Most experts agree that Indianapolis has between 1 1/2 to 2 years of unsold condo inventory and prices on many existing units sold in 2003-2005 have taken a major price hit of 30-40 percent due to foreclosed units sitting for sale at bargain prices in the same buildings. There is a 70 month supply of million dollar condos downtown.

The developer originally wanted to build an even bigger building but howls of protests from just about every preservationist in town resulted in the 'scaled back' project which still casts huge shadows over every building around it.

The reason I mention this is that I hope developers in a rush to "turn around OTR", do not make the same mistakes as developers in Indy. We need to really look at projects and we need to look at them in architectural context. It is interesting to note the most popular, and stable, condo buildings are not new construction but rather warehouse conversions and small townhouse projects, even they have taken a price hit because of overbuilding, On the other hand single family restored homes , sell at a premium. I think Cincinnati could learn from that, at least I hope they do. We need more restoration , less new construction. Restoring what we have will serve our interest, more so than building some 'neo structure'.

Avondale Mansion : Victim of Salvage thieves AGAIN

The 4008 Rose Hill Mansion has, according to an area resident been the victim of salvage thieves again.

The First floor stain glass windows were stolen earlier, now according to neighbors the second floor stained glass is gone as well. Residents are highly frustrated by this activity and board up is not happenning in a timely manner exposing the house to the elements.

If anyone has "before' photos of the stained glass, I will forward them to local antique dealers as someone my try to sell them. Also its important to keep an eye on EBAY and Craigslist as often stolen stained glass shows up there.

Interesting article on Nashville TN in Preservation Magazine

One could draw some interesting parallels between Nashville and Cincinnati. Both have Historic neighborhoods, both had an interstate result in wholesale destruction and both had large public housing projects and section 8 in their historic neighborhoods.

Nashville has embraced preservation and historic tourism and Cincinnati can't seem to wrap its collective mind around the concept. Nashville is successful and well we all know the struggles of the Preservation Community in Cincinnati.

Interesting article and interesting city and would be a good "weekend getaway" for anyone wanting to get ideas on how to turn a city, or neighborhood, around. Perhaps we need to load our city council on a bus and send them there?

http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2009/july-august/Nashville-cover.html

Hannaford Designed Avondale mansion faces demolition hearing

The Hannaford Designed Mansion at 3725 Reading Road is set for a demolition hearing at 9:00 A.M. on June 12, 2009 in the Main Conference Room, First Floor, Business Development and Permit Center, 3300 Central Parkway.

One of the few Frame houses designed by Hannaford (most were stone). This home was built in 1884 is in the Shingle style with Queen Anne detailing. It was built for Walter Field who was the president of the American Cottonseed Oil company. The property became the Jewish Hotel in 1912 and later a rooming house.

According to city records the house had been an on going issue and was ordered vacant. . The home was sold at auction a few years ago and many had hoped it would be restored. This house is a listed National Landmark and to have a house that is on the national registry be the subject of a demolition hearing should be a source of embarrassment for the people and City of Cincinnati.

We need to come up with some sort of 'solution" here. Perhaps divert historic properties into a "hold status" while the house is listed for sale.? I can't imagine the present owner is OK with it being torn down? Perhaps reach an agreement with the owner to sell the house with a protective covenant that the house must be restored and a requirement that any new buyer must submit a restoration plan to the city?

Other cities have similar programs to buy some time for these homes to be saved, why can't Cincinnati? It is far cheaper for the taxpayer if a house is sold and saved rather than the taxpayer funded cost of tearing it down. A vacant lot does not contribute to the tax base of this city.

The Mt Lookout Public Housing Controversy: My Take on this.

One of the advantages about not being born and raised in Cincinnati is that I look at things maybe a little more objectively. After 20 yrs as a Historic Restoration Consultant I have worked on countless zoning issue and have dealt with issues of low income housing in the past in other major cities. So here is my unsolicited "take' on this issue.

First of all I "understand" the utter frustration, and panic of the residents of Mt Lookout, clearly one of the nicest places in the city. People have worked hard all their life to attain a level of success to be able to afford to live there, they love their neighborhood and they maintain it and they feel "blindsided" by Public Housing coming to their neighborhood. They have legitimate concerns about their property values, their quality of life and the public safety of their neighborhood, and frankly there is nothing they can do to stop this.

I also "understand" the sense of "glee" being felt by residents of Price Hill, Fairmount and Westwood who feel they have been a dumping ground for years. The "its their turn, see how you like it" sentiment runs high and if one looks at the message boards on the Enquirer you can see it. Maybe it is the "East vs West" thing, I don't know and frankly I don't care.

What we need to be talking about it the entire issue of the CMHA. Public Housing should not be a birth to death entitlement program, it should be a 'hand up' in a time of need and it should be temporary, except for those who have a mental disability or a physical disability or are elderly and on fixed income.

The great experiment by Lyndon Johnson was never meant to be a multi generational welfare system and it is time that we, as a community, look at how we "fix' the issue of a broken system. Far too many 'play' this system, they teach their children who to "play the game" how to get on disability. We reward irresponsible behavior of having too many kids you can not afford with a bigger Section 8 voucher, or a larger deduction on taxes for dependents. A large number of people in this country pay nothing to the Federal Government in Federal Taxes but receive billions in benefits. Our schools are broken and our neighborhoods are deteriorating. In fact, we no longer have neighborhoods just houses where that we come home too and lock our doors and turn on our security systems, and sit down to evening news of this bailout or that bailout or how the Federal Government is wasting our tax dollars on some pork barrel project.

Take the CMHA, it has 300 employees and services 5200 units. Even if every one of those employees were a case worker ( and they are not) that is an impossible case load. Also the CMHA appears to operate in a vacuum with little or no oversight.

Questions that all of us regardless of what side of town you are in need to be asking:

1. Just how does CMHA acquire property and why is there no public comment BEFORE acquisition? The State of Ohio has a Sunshine Law and the Federal Government also has laws regarding transparency. Are these guideline being followed?

2. Conflicts of Interest: Are their "Conflict of Interest" issues with the board of CMHA and whom are they accountable to?

3. Direction? Is the purpose of CMHA to provide needed services to those who truly need them or is CMHA simply in an expansion mode looking to grab more federal dollars. Cincinnati is 52 in terms of size yet CMHA is 17th largest in the country.

4. Cost per unit: What is the cost per unit of acquisition and repairs and is CMHA being fiscally responsible?

The number of 38K for a single person and 55K for a family of 4 as being the low income threshold for "low income assisted housing' in Mt Lookout. Lets put that in perspective if you are a single person making 38,000 a year with lets say 1000.00 a month in car payment and credit card debt you can, according to the HUD/FHA website, afford to buy a 120,000.00 home with an annual 2000 a year property tax bill. Note the average median home price in Cincinnati is 127,805.00 and is in decline due to economy. Now you may not be able to afford a dream house in MT Lookout but you certainly can buy a nice home.

So why are we providing subsidies to people who do not need it? Why are we not concentrating on the truly needy? Our biggest concern as a community should be lobbying to change the federal guidelines as they are too generous and we as taxpayer are subsidizing people who do not need help! We need to eliminate the massive fraud in this system.

However the whole Mt Lookout, public housing controversy pales by comparison to what may happen with the Section 8 program. The Obama administration is looking at tightening the guidelines for Section 8 certification as relates to lead based paint. If the restrictions under discussion become law, it will render most Section 8 property ineligible to be certified for Section 8 in the City of Cincinnati. Most landlords will not spend the 20-40,000 estimated cost to bring a property into compliance for the new tougher guidelines.

What does that mean? Look out Townships and Suburbs! Foreclosures are already being bought by investors looking to rent them out with Section 8 Vouchers. These new guideline will also affect CMHA properties as well. Few properties built prior to 1978 will meet the guidelines. Housing agencies in California and a few other states are looking at making changes to their State laws to allow them to buy foreclosed, post lead based paint ban, "McMansions" and convert them into multi family units and over-ride local zoning ordinance.

Basically one can expect round two of "Middle Class Flight" and it will be either to the "far burbs" which means the City of Cincinnati property and income tax base gets decimated, and local business cant attract quality workers OR an exodus back to the Urban Neighborhoods originally abandoned because of low income housing. In that case the city is ill prepared to offer quality schools and the expected level of services one gets in the suburbs, meaning taxes will have to go up. The city will also have to come up with some sort of subsidy or grants to get a massive amount of housing stock restored. Far more incentives than the current 10 yr tax abatement.

There is far more to this than Public Housing comes to Mt Lookout, and it is time for we the taxpayers to ask hard questions.

Mr Mayor,Members of the Council: You do not "Fight Blight" with a bulldozer

Building Cincinnati had an article yesterday about the councils "bright ideas" for what to do with all the vacant lots given the city has all this Bulldoze money at hand. I responded in the comments section but felt a more detailed answer is needed and feel free to forward this to your local councilperson. http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/04/two-ideas-to-fight-blight-unbudgeted.html

In the 1960's the Federal Government had the "bright idea" that the best way to turn around cities was to Bulldoze those "old houses" in the urban neighborhoods and replace them with nice new "ranch homes" the Old FHA homestead program, OR, to tear down blocks of neighborhoods and build housing projects.

Most ALL Urban Planners agree that fixing "blight by bulldozer" or "Urban Renewal" as the Feds called it was a failed experiment. I remember this first hand as Indianapolis went into neighborhoods like the Old Northside, Herron Morton, Holy Cross and bulldozed those "big old houses" that were left behind by "white flight" in the 1950 and early 1960's. Huge amounts of what was once the grand architecture of Indianapolis and other midwest cities was lost in the 1970's by the federal Governments bright idea..

What "urban renewal" did was create ghettos. The few remaining residents who did not leave as part of "White Flight" in the 50's and early 60's left due to Urban renewal. Why? Because their was no 'community" left to live in.

Cities like Indianapolis were dead for over 30 years. Its Urban Neighborhoods were full of high crime , drive by shootings, and drugs. It was ONLY in the late 1980's when "Urban Pioneers" as they were called, came to Urban Neighborhoods and attracted by the few Victorian homes left, started renovations. Even so, it was along, drawn out process and it was another 20 years before builders were even thinking about maybe building in Urban Neighborhoods again. The city had to pump Millions and Millions of dollars in incentives and new streets and sidewalks and parks to get builders back in. The city lost Billions of dollars of tax revenues in those 30 years and Indianapolis almost didn't make the turn around. Cities like Detroit NEVER DID!

Cincinnati largely escaped the 1960's "Urban Renewal movement. It had strong neighborhoods , there wasn't allot of "white flight" like occurred in most cities. Sure there were some failed housing experiments in the West End, but Cincinnati was one of the few cities to escape this "failed experiment"and today is known Nationally for its fine architecture.

However the Cincinnati City Council hasn't learned ANYTHING from this. The problem of blight was caused by the city emptying out OTR and dumping section 8 housing into Price Hill, Fairmount, Westwood and Walnut Hills, and Avondale. There was no "plan" , it was "Oh we had a riot, we have to do something".

So stable neighborhoods became "destabilized' by the city of Cincinnati and now 8-10 years later the city wants to "fix"" the problem it created with a bulldozer!

My response is "thanks but no thanks! The Knox Hill Neighborhood" does not need 20 vacant lots , we need 20 well maintained houses. We know first hand what a vacant lot looks like. This property pictured here is the result. It is on out TOP 5

"Problem Property List". The city has had an ongoing battle with this property owner for FIVE years. From the Vending Machines sitting in the yard to the PIT BULLS he breeds and sells (funny how you can't seem to get rid of those dogs, I believe you have an ordinance against them?), this is what happens when you bulldoze a house and have a vacant lot in the areas where you are 'fighting blight". You replace a blighted

house that that could be restored,with a blighted vacant lot!

Bulldozing 'seems' like an easy approach, problem gone. But all you do is create a new set of problems. People want and are attracted to neighborhoods that look complete, that have a street presence. A neighborhood with a bunch of vacant lots, looks like a neighborhood in decline. Experience has shown us that it can take years before people come along who cares about a neighborhood and want to live there and want to turn it around. And you can't expect the owner of a blighted house you bulldoze will maintain his now vacant lot with a huge lien against it any better. If the city does not get a judgement and obtain the property in lieu of judgement, you accomplish NOTHING!

I'm not just 'speaking' about this issue, I've actually done something about it. We bought a house and a lot next to it. Had we not come along would likely be going on your bulldoze list. It is on your VBML list and I dare you to take me to court! It is perhaps the best maintained property on the block and has had more invested in it than the entire block has seen in the last 20 years combined.

We are putting our money where our mouth is, over 150,000.00 by the

time we are done and we have set up the neighborhood group and website

http://sites.google.com/site/knoxhillneighborhoodassoc/ . We have promoted the area to loacl realtors. We have set up our own crime watch.

All things that you were elected to do, but don't. I have been instrumental in turning around several urban neighborhoods in the last 20 years. I can do the same thing here, but the city certainly is not helping by using failed strategies from 30 years ago that we know from experience do not work and doom a neighborhood to fail.

Before you congratulate yourself on how a "Urban Garden"or"adopt a lot"will make you, the

council look good, and how it will help your re-election, why don't you stop congratulating yourself and ask the neighborhoods what they want?. As for us we have a plan is is called "Save not Raze" http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2009/03/knox-hill-neighborhood-association-save.html

We have 20 properties on the VBML or Condemn list and while we agree some properties like Irish Cliffs Apartments need to be bulldozed and we will celebrate the day it comes down. BUT don't bulldoze our neighborhood, homes built in the 1870-1890's and can easily stand another 100 years, without asking us. It cost the city, 8-12,000.00 bulldoze 1 house (times 20) and we are looking at spending 160-240K dollars "tearing down" my neighborhood, not building it up!

Take just a portion of that say,50K, and create a Facade Grant Program so we can help lower income residents and seniors who have stood by this neighborhood since the 1950's, in spite of your attempts to destroy it, and let's fix up their homes instead. Maybe buy those blighted properties spend a few thousand painting and sprucing them up and reselling them to owner occupants willing to sign a protective covenant that they will pull permits and restore them? I know you can buy them and stabilize them for less than you will spend Bulldozing them? How about thinking 'out of the box'? How about using Historic Preservation as a development tool?

Trust me those "blighted' properties will have buyers.

Spend those demo monies on more inspectors, more attorneys, more enforcement, PERHAPS A FULL TIME HOUSING COURT? But we don't want your bulldozers , thank you very much! Before you 'write off' my neighborhood , maybe you should come and look at it. I will be happy to show you around as I am working on my house every weekend! What are you doing to help my neighborhood?