In today’s newspaper, Daniel Suddeath charts the status of the partially collapsed building at the corner of 8th and Culbertson, and in the process of doing so provides readers with enough smelly discussion points to last the whole day through.
New Albany spending $35,000 to save dilapidated house; Historians tout importance of 1858 structure to neighborhood
It is conceded by all interested parties that the historic building in question has been the victim of long and sustained neglect, and in fact was “out of code.” The owner is a legendary, notorious absentee slumlord. Yet, no enforcement mechanisms were exercised, and nothing was done until after Mother Nature provided the necessary cue.
Was the slumlord a Democratic Party donor, or is it just another case of the New Albany Syndrome?
And so: The city having yet again enabled a slumlord through non-enforcement, and with the familiar result of chronic neglect leading first to disaster, and then the piety of newfound urgency, the fund-raising for Band-Aids begins anew.
Grumbling all the way, the Redevelopment Commission is tapped for some CDBG cash, and Indiana Landmarks tithes its share, which in an interesting twist is revealed to be coming from the sale of a long dormant Landmarks-owned property on the 1600 block of East Spring.
Wonder what the purchasing developer's plan is for that one?
The politician/realtor handling the transaction of the East Spring property for Landmarks makes a requisite appearance to promote the fundraising effort, and no one blinks an eye.
Carl Malaysz off-handedly remarks that more of the needed restoration money might come from the Horseshoe Foundation, or better yet the Urban Enterprise Zone, the current administration’s recurring and handy ATM in times of need. Everyone agrees to be more diligent and pro-active in the future, and nothing at all changes.
In Jeffersonville, the slumlord giggles. Again.
Speaking personally, of course I want to see the building saved. But will anything ever be learned here? As a friend observed on Twitter:
"When will New Albany figure it out? Consistent code enforcement is cheaper than spending money to 'save a dilapidated structure' ... and it becomes really expensive to pay a building commissioner and code enforcement officers to essentially do as little as possible."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Does Historic Landmarks do any advocacy for code enforcement?
This situation is appalling, but so is the Tabernacle and everything else that the government has done to this town in the last 2 generations.
Trashing the city has been very profitable for a select few, now who pays to undo the damage?
OH, by the way, the answer is me and you. I'm the fool that bought a slumhouse full of criminals and restored it only to watch said slum lord trash the house next door and fill it with highly questionable, and in some cases, the criminals who terrorize the neighborhood.
In the 5 years I've been investing, SlumLord thumbs his nose and disinvests.
I know, it's so unglamorous to do the work of city government when you can spend your days playing redevelopment czar. So much corruption of duty...
[Funds are] coming from the sale of a long dormant Landmarks-owned property on the 1600 block of East Spring.
Wonder what the purchasing developer's plan is for that one?
The E. Spring St. purchaser is my client. You can see his most recent work at 310 E. 9th St., long an abandoned and boarded up house he acquired last year. Despite the fact that the prior owners had not made a mortgage payment in over five years, the bank thought 310 E. 9th was of so little value that it had opted not to foreclose. We could not locate the owners. I persuaded the bank to assign us its mortgage interest so we could foreclose and buy the house at sheriff sale. That's what we did.
With regard to E. Spring, nothing yet is set in stone but he has strong interest from a farm-to-fork catering business, which may go on the first floor, with possible apartment(s) up top.
I'm sorry to say, but before the windstorm the building at 8th and Culbertson was well within code.
Most properties that people have issues with are within code.
Code enforcement is a reactionary policy. New Albany needs a proactive comprehensive redevelopment strategy, one that eliminates the need for four code enforcement officers.
New Albany need rental property inspection. Out of town slum lords know that little is done to inspect and require when it comes to keeping up property.
I have found the code enforcement officers polite, attentive and hard working when I've pointed out violations.
Truly moving upstream against the problem means active rental property inspection.
I’ve read some people question the historic merit of this building and the allocation of the $35,000. Some say it's an eyesore, a blight on the neighborhood, and should be demolished.
Obviously $35,000 is a nice chunk of change. I will not argue if someone says $35,000 is better spent elsewhere and I certainly won’t argue against code enforcement.
However, I long have admired this building and believe it has tremendous architectural value. It is one of the finest examples of Greek Revival architecture in Floyd Co. Yes, it is a blight in its current condition. But for comparison, let’s think about another building just a block away.
Five years ago, the Cardinal Ritter building was in equally bad shape and equally blighted the neighborhood. When it was acquired, most of the restoration financing was not in place. Financing took around five years, I believe. Construction still is not 100% complete. If you look merely at the “before” and “after” pictures of Cardinal Ritter, it’s clear that something that once was a blight can becomes something that strongly contributes.
The building changed big time, but was Cardinal Ritter worth the investment? I don’t know. That’s a judgment call that requires weighing other projects that could have been tackled with the restoration funds. I do know that many in the neighborhood who five years ago would have said “tear it down” are now glad that it’s still there.
As a reminder, here's a picture of Cardinal Ritter House in 2004.
http://tinyurl.com/67cev2m
What's even more pleasant about the Ritter house being saved is the two owners of the two lots (including the Ritter house) actually proposed tearing down both houses on the corner in 2002 - and building what they described as "five rent houses" on the two small lots.
Thankfully, the Zoning Appeals Board called the proposed units "little barracks" and denied the request.
I agree - some folks may lack vision before action, but most folks notice progress after the fact.
Since Dan is repeating Facebook comments here, I'll transfer this over:
The bottom line, I think, is that preservation issues can't be effectively dealt with on a building by building basis. Richard Moe, former head of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, spent the better part of two decades pointing to sprawl as the number one threat to older properties both urban and rural. As he correctly pointed out, curbing that threat (i.e., valuing rather than devaluing those properties) needs to occur via changes to land use, transportation, and other social and economic policies.
Unfortunately, local preservationists tend to remain silent on those issues, opting instead to spend financial and political capital on individual properties. The Ritter House, too, ultimately received quite a bit of public subsidy.
Original Facebook thread:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=137760272967325&id=1013478099
Jeff - you may have seen this recent NYT article -
"Death by Nostalgia"
If not - here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11Goldhagen.html?_r=1&hp
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that.
Sometimes the language used and its connotations create a problem. "Preservaton" tends to conjure an image of something sealed behind glass at which we occasionally gaze and admire when viability well into the future is the actual goal.
Sometimes I think if we just said that without all the "historical" accoutrements attached, both the level of understanding and approaches might change.
Jeff, no one here said sprawl was not an issue affecting preservation.
Surely you don't think local preservationists should focus solely on sprawl? Sometimes there's an important building with a bulldozer out front that requires immediate action.
If you want to change the subject and talk about what Ed Clere is or isn't doing in Indianapolis to address sprawl, go ahead. But Ed's legislative actions don't weigh too heavily on whether the Redevelopment Commission made the right decision given the resources they have. It doesn't affect code enforcement by the city. Nor does it affect whether the building has architectural merit.
Bottom line, all local preservationists could have began a full blown anti-sprawl campaign several years ago and we still would have 8th and Culbertson in the condition it is in now. You just can't make a blanket statement that ignoring all endangered buildings and focusing solely on sprawl is the best route for preservationists.
Since not everyone is following the FB discuss, here's a repost.
This is a link to an nearly identical building built around the same time. This is what 8th & Culbertson might look like once restored.
http://claibornemansion.com/themansion/
no one here said sprawl was not an issue affecting preservation.
And few in the local preservation movement have said that it is, as a part of their educational efforts. Given that national leaders like Moe and Rypkema have been saying it repeatedly for a long time, why not? Why are we even having this conversation in 2011?
Ed's legislative actions don't weigh too heavily on whether the Redevelopment Commission made the right decision given the resources they have.
Legislative trends very much impact investment decisions and outcomes. Do you think the state chamber of commerce has donated roughly $100K to help get Ed elected over the past few years because they don't think his legislative actions carry weight? You argued earlier that we should consider long-term outcomes. Ed's and the legislature's actions will increase or decrease the value of that building and our investment in it over time and should be considered in evaluating the investment.
all local preservationists could have began a full blown anti-sprawl campaign several years ago and we still would have 8th and Culbertson in the condition it is in now.
That's probably true in this particular case given the decades it took to get that way but every step they take to reduce sprawl is a step toward avoiding future 8th and Culbertsons.
Or is the plan to just keep using a large amount of our resources to publicly subsidize and encourage threats to buildings like that while simultaneously using smaller amounts to subsidize last ditch efforts to ward off the negative effects of doing so? If so, that's a lose/lose and the $35K was a bad investment.
Post a Comment