NA Confidential: A cavity rapidly being filled.

Friday, September 23, 2011

A cavity rapidly being filled.

10 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...: I assume they have the same City mandated time frame for repairs as the house on Main Street to avoid demolition.; 10:15 AM
dan chandler said...: The situations around this structure, and the Main St. house to which Jeff alludes, are very different.

For one, 8th and Culbertson’s owner has signaled its clear intention to restore the building and has taken concrete steps in that direction.

That contrasts with the situation on Main St. If its owner sent a similar clear intention that he plans to fix up his building, and if he took concrete steps in that direction, then I suspect the city would pull back on its demolition talk. However, to my knowledge, the owner has not yet stated a clear intention. I hear that he is exploring his options, and I hope he is able to either bring it to code himself or sell it to someone who will. But to date, he has not stated his intentions.; 3:18 PM
G Coyle said...: "I hear that he is exploring his options, and I hope he is able to either bring it to code himself or sell it to someone who will."

...or does he have the option of bank foreclosure? That always really helps a neighborhood.; 5:27 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Actually, the owner of the Main Street property has already completed quite a bit of work with concrete results. There is more to do, but he's cited a lack of funds as the reason for not completing it all yet. He was given a strict timetable to complete it or face possible demolition.

Given the known lack of funds at 8th and Culbertson, I just wonder what the City's response will be if that's stated as a reason should the building still be uninhabitable months from now.

Compounding that, the same folks who own the 8th Street building are now looking at purchasing the Main Street property as well, knowing they don't have the funds to complete the projects they already have.

I understand the inclination to consider one owner a bad guy with bad intentions and the others good guys with good intentions. I'm just not sure how we can tell one owner "Get it done or else" but then tell another that they can have whatever time they may need.

I could be wrong, but it seems as though handling such cases differently on the basis of who the owner is could be legally problematic. And, yes, I also understand that the general concept of fairness is routinely ignored around here.; 7:14 PM
G Coyle said...: Why can't our town just enforce building codes? There is nothing inherently political about shared community standards.; 1:56 PM
dan chandler said...: I'm just not sure how we can tell one owner "Get it done or else" but then tell another that they can have whatever time they may need.

I could be wrong, but it seems as though handling such cases differently on the basis of who the owner is could be legally problematic.

Jeff, I completely agree with these statements of general principle. However, I disagree with their application to the facts at hand. The city is not basing its decisions merely on who the owners are. The owners' actions have been very different.

At 8th and Culbertson, the current owner has owned the building only a few short months. The owner has performed work during most of its ownership.

I believe “they can have whatever time they may need” is a bit of hyperbole. No one should be happy if the building looks substantially the same, say 5 or 6 years from now, as it does today. If 8th & Culbertson sits out of code under its current owner as long as Main St. sat out of code under its current owner, then I have every expectation the city will seek fines or demolition.

In Short, the Main St. owner has had years to bring his building up to code. The 8th and Culbertson owner has not. My general concept of fairness does not include always treating different situations the same.; 10:04 AM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: The 8th and Culbertson owners own 1605 East Spring as well, which has been sitting uninhabitable since 2006. Instead of facing threatened demolition, they were provided city funds to purchase the Culbertson property that they can't afford to rehab, either.

That is pretty different.; 11:13 AM
dan chandler said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2:49 PM
dan chandler said...: I see that you disagree with NARC's decision to allocate money for 8th and Culbertson. That was a political decision where reasonable minds can disagree. But that is different from saying one of the owners are being treated arbitrarily when it comes to code enforcement. I'm just pointing out this fact: different actions by owners can reasonably result in different actions by code enforcement officials, all without there being some conspiracy, revenge, kickback, payoff, or other unfairness.

As a side note, 1605 E. Spring St. is under contract. An experienced contractor will be closing on it within a week or so, make substantial improvements, and put a business in it. In my opinion, far better than the alternative, another parking lot.; 2:51 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Yep, the Spring Street owners were given years to reach that parking lot avoiding outcome.

Now that the building is vacated, will the Main Street owner have that same opportunity? To take as long as it takes to sell it on his terms?; 3:04 PM