The discussion around this topic is great - and I still support the idea.
Further thoughts:
Mr. Atherton asserted that it could actually delay the creation of affordable
housing. I presume that this is based on the idea that delays in demolition
translate into delays for new, replacement housing. While this could be the
case in some areas, there are still several hundred vacant lots in the city.
Many of the vacant lots in Central, where housing was recklessly demolished by
the MCDA for a time period, have been vacant for over five years. So while
there is merit to this argument, I believe it would only affect a small portion
of the city.
Someone else noted the drudgery of living next to a vacant house. I live next
to a formerly vacant house that was owned by the MCDA for six years before it
was rennovated. One thing that was demanded by neighbors prior to my arrival on
the scene that really helped was an 8 foot chain link fence at the perimiter of
the property. Yes, people can get past it, but they almost never did. Of the
three such houses formerly vacant on my block, only one was broken into, and
they were caught in the act of cutting the wire before they got in. Security
systems are another option. At one time, Jana Metge had persuaded Honeywell to
fund several portable security systems that would protect vacant houses from
intruders until re-development plans were determined. This type of situation
could be applied at the city level. While I understand what a problem a vacant
house can be, it seems an insufficient argument to demolish a resource.
Further, vacant lots attract their own variety of problems too.
Replacement housing is terribly expensive when you total the costs that are
accrued by different departments and agencies. $12 - $15K for demolition, who
knows how much staff time, then new construction subsidies of $50K or more.
Then there are the environmental costs, and there is always the historical value
of older housing - in addition to the extra amenities many older homes offer
(including a lot more space). One might also consider the "uglification factor"
and quality issues associated with new housing. GMMHC says their houses will
last at least 25 years, slightly less than the average mortgage, and slightly
longer than the average trailer house.
In a well run city, there is no reason that houses should be vacant for more
than a minimal amount of time - that is a problem with our system that needs
immediate attention as well. It could be as simple as doing an immediate
Request for Proposals to first time homebuyers or developers - but many many
structures are demolished by the city without ever seeking options from the
public.
Lets keep the ideas rolling -
David Piehl
8th Ward/Central
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
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
