The siding's been off for more than a year, and the when the big fleet vehicles are parked on either side of the corner, it's a sight hazard for driver, cyclist and pedestrian alike.Should we care? Or is it free enterprise to let this house rot?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Roger,
To be fair, there is a back story to this issue with Mr. Williams.
Apparently he has run into some issues with an organization regarding replacing the siding with something that they can afford, or at least that is my understanding.
I've been wondering about that building. It's a block from my house and I walk past it quite a bit.
It looks like the original wood siding is still hanging in there, even though it's been trapped and abused.
As the old joke goes, folks will eventually start figuring out that it's most often replacement siding and windows that need replacing.
The amount of undoing that needs to be done around here is, well, it's a lot.
“An organization?” Which one? The only organization with any official say is the Preservation Commission and I don’t think it’s them.
I don’t know if this building had vinyl siding or wood siding a year ago. If the property had been vinyl sided for a couple decades, the owner is fine. To be fair to those who care about intellectual honesty, the preservation guidelines say that a visually non-conforming material (such as vinyl siding), when damaged or worn out, can be replaced with the same type of non-conforming material. If the owner intends to replace old vinyl with new vinyl, the preservation commission would be required to approve the request if there was no major change in appearance. There’s no requirement to upgrade, you just can’t downgrade.
If the property never had been vinyl sided, them he’s breaking the rules by adding new siding. To be fair to the neighbors who follow the rules and maintain their properties, if the property had not been vinyl sided before last year, then new siding would not be approved.
Again, to be fair to the neighbors, if the owner cannot afford to maintain the property, nothing prevents him from selling the property. Besides, most of the time in these situations, “can’t” really just means “doesn’t want to.” But if you really cannot afford a property, whether it be because of property taxes, utilities, mortgage payments, homeowners’s association dues, or preservation guidelines, then you should sell your property. “Can’t afford” means you need to sell the property irrespective of the sources of the costs.
Cost of siding aside, other aspects of the appearance of this property are inexcusable. The section of siding covering the window would cost nothing to repair and the building could be painted a uniform color tomorrow.
The neighbors maintain their properties which improves the neighborhood. This property owner isn’t doing his part. There’s a word for that: Freeloader
Satirist,
Hopefully you would understand of me, given the constant referral to the phrase "to be fair", that I use, that I 99.5% of the time do not excuse deplorable conditions regarding housing or businesses.
I simply posted that statement, as I had a conversation with the owner of the building a couple of months ago regarding the state of the business.
"To be fair", I AM a business neighbor of that property, when I am at my Floyd County office and look out the front window, I see it.
I can only relate what the owner had said to me, that he ran into problems with an organization regarding the replacement of the siding (whether it is aluminum or vinyl, and he wanted to replace the siding with the opposite of what is on there)
I understand the mission of the preservation commission, though I do not fully agree with the power they hold over what a property owner does with said property in such detail, however it is important to note that I did not name them, Mr. William had simply told me he had problems with an organization, which has led to the current state of the business.
He did not say if it was the P.C., he did not say if it was his bank, or even the local plumbers union.
So "to be fair", I thank you for rehashing to me the mission of the PC, to be fair, I thank you for "educating" me of what it means to be a responsible property owner, and to be fair, I thank you humbly for having the "intellectual honesty" to be able to teach an uninformed pleb like me the difference between wood, vinyl and aluminum siding.
(By the way, I was never defending the property or the owner, I was posting something i had some information on after taking an unheard of step, I talked to the owner and asked him)
Chris, I was not attacking you and I'm sorry if my post sounded that way. I was attacking the notion that property owner is being treated unfairly. The only unfair thing happening is that his neighbors have to look at this mess because of Mr. William's unwillingness to maintian his property.
I've never paid attention to that building before, but it sure has potential and it's right there on the corner.
Maybe someone or some organization can help the owner to work out a siding solution that doesn't damage the building.
Freeloader, Ghetto-Buisness model, slumlording, take your pick. "If it walks like a duck, ..."
Please add to the list on this particular community open sore - during St Mary's school drop-off and pick-up times, the Williams trucks create a definite safety issue. At a minimum, just so school children will not be killed or maimed, the city needs to get that man's trucks at least 20 feet away from any corner. Next to parking in a handicapped spot, the worse non-moving violation in a big city is parking (live or otherwise) within 20 of a corner.
B.W.Smith - are there any legal people who can help the preservationists fighting these battles on the ground here?
as opposed to offering to help the problem. Are there any resources to support the solution?
A good illustration of part of the problem in this city. A mindset to insue a legal fight, instead of trying to cooperate in reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
I am not friends with Mr. Williams, its a business relationship, and that is on a limited basis.
When I talked to him about it, he is aware of the problems, (not defending him), he was trying to reach a plan to address it.
I would have to disagree with the assertations of a freeloading, ghetto-business model, etc.
From what I know, they are a very small company, (maybe 6 employees), and they did an excellent job as far as the work I had hired them for. they were professional, courteous, knowledgable, and efficient.
Maybe someone can pick up the phone and give them a call and ask them if they plan on repairing the structure, if not why, if so when.
Sounds like a familiar conversation, eh, Chris?
Brandon, since you're one of the reasonable ones here, or Chris, since you know Mr. Williams, maybe call and give him a heads-up that if he wants to replace the siding, he can do so and won't have to do a tear-back to the original lapboard. He's probably gotten some misinformation about what he's able to do somewhere along the line.
[A]re there any legal people who can help the preservationists fighting these battles on the ground here?
We've posted about this before, I think. In lieu of the city taking an interest, anyone in a historic district has standing under the ordinance to bring an enforcement action, and it isn't that hard to find someone qualified either here or in Indy/Louisville to take the case. From what I can tell, the local preservationistas are up on the law and know their rights.
As far as a type of legal defense fund, I know Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana engages in litigation, but it really isn't their role to police the local block. This is where a local non-profit group might come in and work on a solution, legal action or not.
as opposed to offering to help the problem.
I have no knowledge of Mr. Williams or his situation, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. If one could, say, put up half to have him recondition his wood siding or, if needed, replace it with HardiePlank and have him pay it back over time, etc., why not? Win win. If he has the cash and is just thumbing his nose, that is a different story.
Are there any resources to support the solution?
Your check book?
Has anyone asked them about moving the trucks?
maybe call and give him a heads-up
I am guessing the NAHPC knows the status of this. Anyone who wants to learn more should contact their staff person (Laura Renwick www.newalbanypreservation.com).
B.W. Smith “and it isn't that hard to find someone qualified either here or in Indy/Louisville to take the case.”
MSPA not interested. Historic Commission has no power. City is obviously in the business of destroying buildings so they’ve sort of neutered themselves. I challenge any lawyer working in the public interest to email me or leave a contact number at my blog to call me. I will pay you money, if that’s all it takes. We’ll start with 703 E Main St and move outward from there (my own personal ground zero).
cue crickets...
Are there any resources to support the solution? Your check book?
Very funny, you know I was thinking public interest lawyers.
We’ll talk sometime about “my” “checkbook” though, just for fun.
Like others, I'm not familiar enough with this particular case to even have an opinion concerning the merits of legal action or other options.
I do know, though, that there are serial offenders who can't reasonably claim ignorance or poverty as justification for their repeated anti-social behavior.
I also know that historic code violations are common. For some, that's a matter of education as has been suggested. However, based on available evidence, I think others will continue until such time as the threat of consistent, appropriate legal action and the costs associated with it becomes very real.
Cooperation is great when it works. I'm for it. But we also need to be prepared for it when it doesn't.
All that said, why is it an attorney's responsibility to initiate contact?
Laura would be the person for him to get accurate info from--I only suggested you, Brandon, since you're such a nice guy, albeit a bit of an elitist :)
Mark kicks puppies.
I mean transversely, Mr. Williams can say "ok, call your lawyers", I retire.
He can take with him 6 good paying jobs, with families depending on those checks, he can put the property on the market (which no one would probably be willing to buy since it has been used as a plumbing warehouse for decades) SO it would sit in limbo and only deteriorate further.
As Bluegill noted, the wood underneath does not appear to be that bad, and as far as the trucks, I will go out on a limb and let him know if they wanted to they could park their trucks in my parking lot after hours and weekends, but cant have them always parked there as I am required to have X number of available parking spaces available during business hours.
(again not defending him for the shape of the property)
Its just I have learned the hard way you can catch more flies with honey in situations like this
It's a simple question to me.
Why doesn't the owner of this building do something to maintain it?
It's a legitimate question, and that's why I posted the photos.
I
AM
ABOVE
ELITISM.
lol
It's not what the guidelines mandate, but returning to the original wood siding could be the most cost effective solution in the long run and would definitely be the best solution for the continued survival and use of the building.
Unlike wood, metal and vinyl siding trap moisture and, instead of allowing the building to breathe as originally designed, create problems with rot, mold, and insects that often wouldn't otherwise exist. A lot of times, condensation pools at the base of walls, rotting the building from the ground up, starting at the sill plate.
They provide hardly any insulative value and, as is evidenced by the photos, are not maintenance free no matter what a salesperson might try to tell anyone.
Anyone ever try to change the color of a vinyl sided house? Good luck.
I mean transversely, Mr. Williams can say "ok, call your lawyers", I retire. He can take with him 6 good paying jobs, with families depending on those checks, he can put the property on the market...
He can. But if he did, New Albany toilets won't stop overflowing. Six fewer people fixing toilets for Williams will mean enough additional work at other local plumbing companies to hire six new employees.
Even cities that respect their neighborhoods have plumbing issues. We're not so depending on one specific provider that we should whore our neighborhoods. That benefits no one.
The same "we need jobs" argument would allow any employer to ignore any building or zoning ordinance.
Need a tire incinerators downtown? Great, put it next to the YMCA. Todd Coleman wants to paint his non-Yellow buildings black? Great, people won't by furniture unless they can buy it from a black building. Tire incinerators and furniture warehouses employ people too.
The only place this line of reasoning takes us is the slums.
Post a Comment