The drawing above shows the boundaries of the Midtown Renaissance area in black, with red circles showing the initial rehab concentration areas. I inserted the green circle and arrow, the latter pointing to the northwest corner of 8th and Culbertson, where the partially collapsed former tavern building has engendered much discussion of late.The green circle illustrates the curious fact that the area adjacent to the deteriorating structure, a small salient of houses enclosed by Fairview Cemetery, is omitted from the rehab target area. I don't know why, and am hoping someone involved in MR can explain it to me.
Given that more than one structure at the corner in question is/was owned by the same notorious deadbeat slumlord (some still actually stand), and as a result, the vicinity suffered much degradation, it seems ideal for inclusion.
Why does this matter? We're belatedly being asked by proponents of saving the tavern building to consider the northwest corner of 8th and Culbertson as a potentially critical nexus for Midtown Renaissance, even though it lies somewhat on the furthest perimeter of rehabs as delineated during the first round, and was not even included within boundaries when the project was commissioned.
Why? Commercial vs. residential?
This omission may or may not suggest anything at all, other than typifying a pathetic phenomenon too obvious to be denied: The chronic, longstanding neglect of the building by all parties involved until precisely one minute after the collapse at the structure's rear. Now, emergency measures -- and emergency monies -- are required. One wonders when, and if, we ever learn.
The presence nearby of the cemetery, which anywhere except New Albany would be a park-like showcase for revitalized housing, and the old Robinson-Nugent campus provide persuasion for the notion that the damaged building at 8th and Culbertson might indeed (and ideally) become a neighborhood pivot of the sort being minted of late.
But the question: Why did we wait until the alarms are ringing at crunch time to elucidate the vision? Has something else changed that we should know? Has a new vision come into focus since the bricks started falling?
Is it pragmatism or politics, or just another example of the New Albany Syndrome in full flowering?
9 comments:
Can’t the “why didn’t someone do something earlier” argument be made to any long neglected building in town?
While researching potential NSP acquisitions, we found a shotgun on 11th that had been abandoned, vacant, open and vandalized for a decade. The bank owned it for 9 years and didn’t realize it. Apparently it was a mix up with the bank's books. I had to fax copies of deeds to the bank, along with proof that their accounting department had been paying the taxes on the house for years, before I convinced the portfolio management dept. that the bank had owned the house all this time.
People in the neighborhood knew it was abandoned. Many took advantage of the opportunity by dumping approximately 100 old tires in the house. Yet 9 years passed before anyone actually called up the bank.
(Note: Our current code enforcement officer had called the bank a month or so before the NSP team did. A very good move in the right direction. I cannot explain the prior 9 years of inaction.)
If anyone says “they” should have done something earlier, I want to know three things:
-Who is “they”?
-What did you do?
-Do "they" have more obligation to help than you do?
I don't disagree with your "they" questions.
When it comes to ordinance enforcement, "they" is clear, isn't it? The alternative being that neighborhood vigilantes arm themselves and begin shooting.
Specifically in this instance, do you know why the salient is not part of the Renaissance?
My other question, not pertaining to what Dan has written:
Having just been scolded for not coming into contact privately with various movers and shakers to have my questions answered without airing the them publicly ... er, isn't that what transparency's all about? Asking the questions publicly, not behind closed doors, and receiving answers similarly?
Sorry if this became toxic ...
Many of the "theys" involved did do something, repeatedly calling for increased code enforcement in the area, reporting derelict properties, and providing evidence and ownership records to the proper city officials concerning such dereliction (including instances of dumping), all to no avail for years.
Houses that were reported multiple times by neighborhood residents were either ignored or, in some cases, cited for very minor infractions like tall grass when much larger problems, like gaping holes in the roof, were easily recognizable from the street.
Last year (the third of the current England administration), I emailed administrators for an update on enforcement progress. I noted that they had run on a platform of strong enforcement and neighborhood residents had supported them, that they had promised to publicly release a plan for dealing with enforcement cases within 30 days and that it had literally been years since that promise was made, and that when they had asked for additional resources to pursue enforcement, neighborhood residents had supported them then, too, and they had received the resources requested.
Given those factors and time passed, I asked if they could name one, single property that had been enforced upon and followed through all the way to legal judgment. And the answer was no, they couldn't, because there weren't any.
I've performed title searches in New Albany for about ten years. I never once saw a lien for code issues until the last couple of years. Now they're not uncommon.
I'm not saying much more cannot be done. More can be done. But there has been clear movement in the right direction.
I'm glad to hear that, Dan.
In terms of continued neighborhood support and cooperation, I suggested a long time ago that the City distribute its monthly enforcement reports or at least post them to the city web site so that neighborhood residents could be better informed. The Deputy Mayor told me the City lacked the technology budget necessary for such things. No, I'm not joking. That's what he actually said to a group of people when I suggested it, again as something positive.
Given that the City uses a fairly simple WordPress template for its web site and that posting those already created documents to it would only take a couple minutes a month, I offered to personally come to the City offices and show them how to do it.
They didn't take me up on the offer but have apparently learned how since, as other documents sometimes appear. Not the enforcement reports, though. I don't know why, given that both the mayor's office and neighborhood residents have consistently said working together on enforcement is a priority.
Those types of ongoing issues make it even more frustrating for residents when others waltz in at the last minute and are handed tens of thousands of dollars for other purposes.
Re: 8th and Culbertson - and Renaissance inclusion:
I feel the Netpointe.com building at 719 East 8th Street is so well done - what if...
1) the entire block had been kept intact and restored...
2) the Netpointe building had been included in the Renaiassance area as part of the proof that the entire area can be saved and restored...
3) the Netpointe building is celebrated for the hard work it has undoubtedly taken.
I still have a copy of the huge, expensive "Master Plan" the City issued about 10 years ago touting the "Eight Street Corridor" - does anyone remember it?
I still have a copy of the huge, expensive "Master Plan" the City issued about 10 years ago touting the "Eight Street Corridor" - does anyone remember it?
I vaguely remember it, yes.
$75,000 for a Master Plan is only expensive if none of the recommendations are implemented.
Post a Comment