I will bet that someone living next to a house that has been boarded for 20 months, has addicts breaking into it to shoot up, which has become the Hyatt Regency for rats and cockroaches, whose yard looks like the Amazon, and for which there are no tangible prospects for a rehabber to come in and fix the building, will find a downside to the idea of the city government putting a moratorium on demolition, especially since the city will probably spend years studying the matter before it is ready, if ever, to get in there and fix the house. And all the time the house is deteriorating more and more, and becoming less and less salvageable, and more and more of a danger to the neighbors.
Jay Clark Cooper Betts Zerby wrote: > David's idea of a moratorium on housing demolition strikes me as a > good idea and I'd be inclined to favor it. Are there any downsides > to it that other list members think merit attention before adopting > it? > Paul Zerby > > ===== > Elizabeth J. Zerby > Minneapolis MN > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals > http://personals.yahoo.com > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
