Re: [Mpls] Housing demolition moratorium(investor perdition)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [from GDL post] In addition, we have to engage lenders in some of these discussions. Lenders have absolutely no interest in a building's occupancy once they foreclose--they would rather the building sit empty, shut off the water, etc., until it is sold. We need incentives for lenders to maintain the building as an occupied building after foreclosure and to work to get it sold quickly rather then letting it sit empty and possibly decline further. Rebuttal: Keith [Reitman] says, Lenders have absolutely EVERY interest in a building's occupancy after they foreclose. Why would a lender left holding the debt for a property a borrower ran from want ...the building ...(to)sit empty, ...(to)shut off the water, etc., until it is sold(?)Water shut off and abandonment leads to board up, break in, arson, freeze damage, and many other perils that lead to condemnation, speedy depreciation of lenders collateral and possibly a vacant lot/total loss. I do presume this type of outcome more likely in North Phillips then Kenwood but I haven't seen to many abandoned sites in Kenwood lately. Sadly, we are currently seeing a bank/lender abandon a building in Hawthorne after a foreclosure, despite our ability to manage it, bring it up to code, pay water bill, etc. (prior to foreclosure we were appointed to keep the building habitable). The lender just wants it off its bad debt list and will dump it as soon as possible, though with their red tape sooner is not typically soon enough. Now it is vacant (the bank gave the tenants notices to move, something we could do little about) the water is off, no one is monitoring it, and who knows what will happen. Let's see if this property goes down or someone comes forward to purchase and rehab soon. I'm pessimistic and disappointed. Gregory Luce North Phillips ___ 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
RE: [Mpls] Housing demolition moratorium
I thought David's original post was fairly limited, in that it involved a moratorium on demolition while we review how to recycle/reuse items in a building scheduled for demo (or revisit whether to demo at all). Not a bad idea, though a review of policy will often take a long long time, and buildings that should come down ought to come down (though I guess that's the emergency exception). Case study for discussion: The MCDA just purchased a sound but struggling duplex on the 2400 block of Bloomington in Phillips for $115,000, with the intent to demolish to make room for the Village in Phillips development. A moratorium would obviously affect that development. Is that an intended effect of the moratorium--to delay some developments pending such a review? I ask genuinely, not knowing more about the Village in Phillips development. Other issues: a few folks have suggested that the moratorium would affect currently occupied problem properties in that it would not demolish those quickly enough. I have trouble with that jump--that is, the oft-stated solution to a problem property (that is occupied) is to demo it. There are other alternatives, plus a moratorium now would not affect such occupied properties. In addition, we have to engage lenders in some of these discussions. Lenders have absolutely no interest in a building's occupancy once they foreclose--they would rather the building sit empty, shut off the water, etc., until it is sold. We need incentives for lenders to maintain the building as an occupied building after foreclosure and to work to get it sold quickly rather then letting it sit empty and possibly decline further. Gregory Luce North Phillips (but writing from outside of Boston, where the average one bedroom is about $1200) David Piehl wrote: In light of this history, I challenge the new council (re-elected and newly elected) as well as mayor-elect Rybak to call for an immediate city-wide moratorium on non-emergency demolition of housing until recycling policy options can be reviewed. A moratorium on demolition would make a strong statement about how serious the new council is about the affordable housing problems. ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] Housing demolition moratorium(investor perdition)
In a message dated 11/16/01 11:47:26 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Other issues: a few folks have suggested that the moratorium would affect currently occupied problem properties in that it would not demolish those quickly enough. I have trouble with that jump--that is, the oft-stated solution to a problem property (that is occupied) is to demo it. There are other alternatives, plus a moratorium now would not affect such occupied properties. In addition, we have to engage lenders in some of these discussions. Lenders have absolutely no interest in a building's occupancy once they foreclose--they would rather the building sit empty, shut off the water, etc., until it is sold. We need incentives for lenders to maintain the building as an occupied building after foreclosure and to work to get it sold quickly rather then letting it sit empty and possibly decline further. Gregory Luce North Phillips (but writing from outside of Boston, where the average one bedroom is about $1200) Rebuttal: Keith says, Lenders have absolutely EVERY interest in a building's occupancy after they foreclose. Why would a lender left holding the debt for a property a borrower ran from want ...the building ...(to)sit empty, ...(to)shut off the water, etc., until it is sold(?)Water shut off and abandonment leads to board up, break in, arson, freeze damage, and many other perils that lead to condemnation, speedy depreciation of lenders collateral and possibly a vacant lot/total loss. I do presume this type of outcome more likely in North Phillips then Kenwood but I haven't seen to many abandoned sites in Kenwood lately. ALSO, says Mr. Luce, ...the oft stated solution to a problem property is to demo it. There are other alternatives... Yes, indeed there are Mr. Luce, and we property OWNERS wish to explore all of them to preserve our rights and our small business investments. Some of us may take a deep breath and clench our fists when we think of all the challenges we face to keep order in a building. We may face a criminally insane tenant or tenant guest, an uncaring or hostile CCP?SAFE office, a hostile council member or neighborhood group or activist, bullying Legal Aid attorneys or small claims court judges who think the poorest person should prevail. And finally, some of us may face a crafty or conniving, tenant remedies group with a desire to take someone's building, equity, or cash-flow thru manipulation of the law, Minn.504 stat. or other legal manipulations. Such a group may be financed with NRP money, grants from foundations, pro bono legal services, and other monies to out gun a small businessman already under siege and under capitalized and unable to utilize his legal remedies Quick enough. At the end of the day, the disinvestment caused by these types of perdition may cause a further loss of affordable housing and a more unstable neighborhood. Keith Reitman, let's work together to solve problems, Near North ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
Councilmember Zerby: A moratorium on housing demolition is overbroad. Instead we need better regs which set clear standards for when structures should be demolished. I know its a lot more complicated, but that is reality. As I said in my post the other day, houses have life cycles, just like cars or any other product. If there was a car shortage would it be wise to put a moratorium on taking cars off the road? Of course not. At some point every car become dangerous to the drivers of that car and to other drivers on the road. The same can be said for housing: when houses become delapidated beyond repair they become a hazard to occupants and to neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods like mine (Whittier/Phillips). Councilman, I would encourage you to drive by 2100 4th avenue south, by the Electric Fetus. The house is a fire hazard, it doesn't have several exterior doors, has broken windows, etc. SAFE officers tell me the inside is like a war zone. Between 1/1/2001 and 9/30/2001 there were 58 police calls to the house. Yes, 58-including calls for drug trafficing, domestic abuse, etc. The house is dangerous to the occupants, is an incredible drain on police resources, is impeding redeveloping of the 4th and Franklin area, and severely taxes people who live near it. There is a woman who lives next door who I understand is traumatized by the house and its occupants. Before a moratorium is put in place, think about living next to this building-24/7. Dave Harstad Whittier --- Betts Zerby [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 __ 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
RE: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
It seems there are ways to deal with all the problems you name other than demolishing the house. If it is unsafe, it can be vacated for safety reasons, and fixed up. The moratorium on demolition seems a good idea to me as well. As I understand the city's current policy, a house is torn down if it costs more to repair it than demolish it. However, it costs much more to build a whole new house. The housing crisis is complicated, and needs a thoughtful response. I am heartened to see a new council-person taking a thoughtful approach to this issue, and asking questions. Amanda Cedar-Riverside Ward 2 ___ 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
Re: [Mpls] housing demolition moratorium
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
[Mpls] Housing demolition moratorium
This is great thread, to which I'll add my two cents: All of the suggestions so far have been about how the city or MCDA could deal with problem properties. I think that is the wrong approach. First, the demolition moratorium idea: this could leave a bunch of derelict houses sitting around, causing unneccessary pain to neighbors. Some houses are just not worth it, so I disagree. Second: having said the above, I personally do not trust our city officials to always know which properties are worth rehabbing and which are not. Only the market can do that job properly. If someone has a vision and some cash, I say let them have at it. So here's my suggestion: Any vacant/boarded properties which come into the city's possession ought to be put on the market immediately. They should be sold to the highest bidder. That purchaser must, of course, comply with the codes and standards that have been set forth, (i.e., they can't just slum the place out) but ought to be allowed a reasonable opportunity to salvage the building. If a property doesn't sell within some amount of time, that can be taken as an indication that there is no financial incentive to rehabbing the place, and it is likely that demolition is the best option. Tired of the wrecking ball AND of living with tinderboxes... Connie Nompelis Ward 6 - Ventura Village __ 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
