On September 7, NA Confidential reported on Charlestown Road fire damage, and a new taqueria.
On my way to and from work, I usually bicycle across Charlestown Road from Terry, and take Ormond to hit the back streets on the north side. Yesterday, I was surprised to see a smoldering hulk where the tanning salon used to be.
On the brighter side, looking roughly southbound toward Shireman Produce, here's a view of the latest Mexican eatery in town, Tacos la Rosita.
Six weeks later, Tacos La Rosita is on a major critical roll. Why is this important? As reader Brandon Smith noted after Monday's posting on this topic:
We are amassing quite a little restaurant scene in New Albany, with more rumored to be on the horizon. The impact of these local restaurants goes far beyond just having a fun place to eat. It helps create the kind of atmosphere and lifestyle ammenities that attract and retain professional types, young folks, creatives, etc. The unique "feel" these places help give New Albany (and the region) is priceless.
First, LEO’s Marty Rosen wrote approvingly of La Rosita:
New Albany expands with flavorful barbecue and Mexican fare.
Then today, Robin Garr of the essential Louisville HotBytes web site followed suit with a great blog review of the establishment:
A bouquet for La Rosita
Think of all the people who’ll venture over the river to New Albany to take the recommendation offered by Marty and Robin, and undoubtedly they’ll get a great meal … but they’ll pass this to get there:
Yes, that's right.
Six weeks later, the burned-out Sun-Sation salon looks exactly the same, still vaguely reminiscent of a scene from a war zone, except I noticed today that someone has thoughtfully wedged a beam between the sidewalk and the façade to keep a portion of the roof from falling completely down.
Yo, Steve L. and the Board of Public Works -- can you tell us why nothing whatsoever is being done about a structure that’s not only an eyesore, and a sad commentary for visitors to survey, but quite plainly poses a safety hazard to children (or drunks) who may be tempted to play in the ruins?
I'm sure there's an explanation.
12 comments:
Maybe I'm naive, but six weeks isn't that long a time, is it? Just the insurance alone might dictate that. Isn't the law that you must demolish or restore within a year?
I don't know the answer. Anybody?
That is my guess as well Mr. Gore.
I haven't a clue what the rules are, but it's frustrating to think that finally we get some good press, and this is what people see.
What is the new place on Vincennes in part of the old NA Plumbing building? Triko? Is this the Greek brasserie we were hoping for?
Not sure, but the Greek place is back in Radcliffe, according to what I read recently on the restaurant forum.
There's a burned out house on State Street, opposite the hospital and about 4 blocks closer to town. It sat, charred and disgusting looking for months and apparently neighbors were complaining to no avail.
I believe the junk that had spilled into the yard finally was cleaned up, but the structure burned over a year ago and still stands. Doesn't look to be reparable.
Steve, can you tell me if the Building Commission has any plans to implement any type of inspection process for buildings so that they don't fall into total disrepair?
I'm talking about citing minor violations before they become big ones--things like missing windows, failing roofs and gutters, etc.
I understand from people in the building code and ordinance enforcement areas that, as Steve mentioned, tracking down the owners of delapidated buildings is often the most difficult part of enforcement.
Can someone educate me on the process? What are the legal requirements for attempting to contact property owners and who has the authority to change that process?
I don't necessarily think getting into the habit of ignoring or lessening owners' rights is a good thing, but there has to be a point at which we, as a municipality, can show that a goood faith effort has been made, thus allowing clean up and/or seizure without the owner's consent.
Steve,
What I'm interested in is an inspection process that doesn't just rely on complaints coming in from neighbors or affected parties. Usually the problem is really bad by the time someone complains, but probably started out as just a minor violation of the ordinances.
For example, I have a friend who lives in the Highlands in Louisville, and she received a violation notice one day from an inspector out on a walking inspection of the entire area--not just to check on one specific house that had been complained about.
The notice gave a certain timeframe to fix two minor things--peeling paint and a downspout that had become disconnected, with a reinspection to take place in 30 days.
Is there some reason why the building commission & commissioner can't break the city up into districts and have an inspector simply do a walking/driving inspection of each district on a rotating basis? That way, no one would feel unfairly singled out, neighbors wouldn't be pitted against neighbors, minor violations could be addressed before they get out of hand, and the public wouldn't be the policing agent--the building commissioner's office would be.
Steve, I would appreciate it if you could push the idea of an inspector to check for building code violations that aren't the result of called-in complaints, but simply routine enforcement of codes.
I remember Overton's idea about inspections, but I seem to recall that it was targeted specifically at rental properties. I went to one of the meetings she held and there were a lot of angry landlords there. I didn't think much of the rental inspection idea in that it targeted only rental housing and did not address owner-occupied housing.
Perhaps the building commission department needs to be reorganized if the inspectors feel they can pick and choose their work.
What I ran into in the past when I had occasion to make a complaint about a rental property in my neighborhood was complete and total resistance on the part of the building commissioner to do anything (Terry Ginkins was the commish then).
First, the letter I mailed in was ignored, then when I called no one would return calls, and then when I appeared in person, I got various dumb reasons why the department could do nothing. Some of the excuses: we can only make an inspection if the complaint comes from a tenant, we're understaffed, you may be complaining only because you don't like the landlord/tenant--I swear, it was a different reason each time I inquired.
I haven't had occasion to deal with the current department, but I still see the same sort of problem in the city--houses that are in violation that just sit and decay. A city our size needs to have an active inspection process that isn't dependent solely on called-in complaints.
Please let me know what the discussion is when you bring this up at the Commission meeting.
And, to wrap up my response, I do think a public-spirited landlord could "package the building" in plastic until such time as he or she can restore or demolish. Burned-out hulks aren't a good image.
Here's an idea:
Mr. Roberts could walk into the office within the next couple of days and announce that regular neighborhood inspections are a requirement for further employment as an inspector with the city.
I'm sure those that refuse could rely on their previous building experience to find the door themselves.
Post a Comment