RestorationConsultant

I've never had problems with buyer financing, our appraisals usually come in higher and most of our buyers are "move up" buyers with substancial down payments. I totally "feel ya" on the VBML thing. I am sure before its over I will have to take the city to Federal court, get the VBML ordinance thrown out and force the city to start over on it's approach. Making me a "Hero" or a "Pariah" depending on which side of the issue you are on. I feel the VBML was a good idea but has been totally perverted by city inspections at this point, that it is a detriment to redevelopment. I've looked at , and passed, on 3 buildings that we could have redone and made an impact on the neighborhood (OTR) but why should I spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and extra time with city inspectors to make a project happen? A VBML is a 'death sentence' for a Historic property in my opinion. Well trained inspectors who are familiar with historic construction, real repair orders and a full time housing court is the solution. I was amazed that city inspectors do not even carry a camera when inspecting to document issues. I have worked with inspection departments accross the country as a consultant on preservation projectss for 20 years now, and this is the first city I've ever seen that doesn't document inspections for evidentiary proceedings. VBML is a time bomb, the way it's being enforced right now is essentially governmental facilitated "redlining" and its just a matter of time before they lose in court. They will have to repay every dime they have collected, pay a ton of legal fees and probably punitive damages. VBML has the potential to bankrupt this city! But the locals here who do not understand how inspection services really work in other cities, do not understand the "dis-incentive" the VBML is to historic developers and preservationists "cling' to theidea that this will "save" OTR and other near downtown neighborhoods.. Most cities, NOT Cincy, are waiving inspection and permit fees to encourage restoration of distressed structures and offering facade grants and streets/sidewalk/lighting improvements. Go downtown and just "suggest' that and you get laughed at.

Michael I"ve done 4 condo conversion projects in Indy ,countless residential restorations, all higher end and all small in buildings and neighborhoods "off the radar" to most before we did them. Right now I'm strictly looking at commercial to put our historic interior design studio, our restoration consulting buisiness, our antiques business, and our vintage art gallery in. I've looked at Brewery and areas around Findlay as well. I like both areas. We self finance all our projects so I do not need bank buy in. After constant battles on our own historic residential restoration (Blindsided by a VBML) in Knox Hill (fairmount). I am likely going to go to Newport and locate our companies there. Not by choice,I'd really like to be in OTR, but I find the biggest obstacle to historic preservation and restoration is city inspection who have no clue what they are doing, pick and choose what parts of the city ordinance they want to follow and basically are the biggest "roadblock' to redevelopment right now. Maybe why Newport and Covington are thriving and OTR still struggles.

Well I think his problem was one of not having any bank level comittments lined up. On a project like this, if you can personally cover acquisition costs, permits zoning and development (model) out of pocket then you generally have enough equity to get some sort of "buy in' from a bank. BUT, you have to 1.) Have really good build out numbers. 2) A realistic Presale "break even" point, and 3.) Development deal financing for purchases pre arranged with the lender you are working with.4) a really good development track record. I've worked on projects similar to this and my big take was he was offering a product not much different from say 3CDC products but it was in Brewery district, which means you are competing with them and maybe 3-4 other smaller developers with similar products AND you are in an area 'percieved" as much worse at the moment with nothing going on development wise! Personally I would have done far fewer units say 6-7 large units high end at 4-500K each. Combined with a live/work/retail condo mix at street levels. BUT to do anything there, you really need a group of small and medium developers and basically do everything from about the 200 blk of McMicken all the way up to Mohawk place. It takes LOTS of money and common goal but it could be done as the total acquisition cost of a 4 block area is pretty reasonable. One small or mid sized developer acting alone, will lose his shirt. You need a concerted effort and maybe a little 'buy in' from the city in terms of cleaning the crime up to make the turnaround. The low end condo market is so overbuilt right now you have to offer something different to be competitive.

Apparently from what I was told (by someone who knows) there was alot of interest in the condos. The problem seemed to be that they needed an investor in order to get a model done. I think if they could have gotten to that point all they would have needed were a few pre-sales to get the ball rolling. Its not 2004 anymore and I agree without something to show people its almost impossible to get anyone to take a leap. But frankly (I saw the same thing happen in Indy) I think the entry level 100-175K condo market is starting to get "overbuilt" in Cincy and I think there will be demand for larger units or single family types of housing. there are an awful lot of units on the market and in the pipeline right now. I do not know if "demand" is there yet?

It definitely will slow progress in that area. There are some really great retail buildings over there that could be developed ( I always thought it would make a nice antiques district) since its close to Findlay Market. I don't know who would be willing to take the risk over there without anything else going on.

The Clyffside Brewery Condo project appears dead in the water at this point. The two buildings which were to be part of a 3 million dollar condo conversion project that would have featured 19 loft units has just been listed by Comey and Sheperd for 199,900.00!. Cathy Frank is the listing agent MLS#1201439 Hopefully a new buyer/developer can be found for that project. The Brewery District area has been struggling for years and when they had the groundbreaking back in 08 I thought this project had good promise. I know a lot of people bought other property over there "banking" on that project happening.

Cincinnatus, aside from my normal duties as Neighborhood Association president dealing with the city, I have 182 emails with various city officials and hours on the phone since March of this year. I gave my attorneys 412 pages of printed emails from and to city inspection services on this issue. Not to mention I have a historic preservation blog where I have devoted hundreds of hours to detailing the problems with the way the city deals with VBML and their "blight=bulldozer" mentality. What is so ironic about that is we are exactly they type of people the community council wants to see in Cincinnati and the biggest roadblocks is from the city vacant building inspections which, for the record, is the most disorganized, unprofessional city inspection services I have ever dealt with and as a historic restoration consultant I have worked with dozens of cities over the last 20 years,( including training inspectors), so I know how these departments are supposed to work. I understand now why Newport and Covington are booming and OTR and other urban neighborhoods are languishing. I seriously doubt we will put our business in OTR at this point, I refuse to deal with the city red tape. Our Historic design studio, Our restoration resource store, our historic art gallery and our antique business will likely be located across the river in Newport and we will invest our money there. I feel bad about that because I prefer OTR and we wanted to locate near Findlay market , I think we could have made a major impact there, but frankly its not worth the hassel. In short the taxpayers are not getting their monies worth but unfortunately if you are local you do not know how things really work in other cities. We need to make big changes and we need to expect better of our city officials. Otherwise we will look like Detroit in another decade. The city is planning on spending 1.1 million on demo next year alone.

Gfi, I cant tell you how many properties I have documented in areas like Fairmount, Prices Hill etc that have gone to VBML over a broken window. Inspectors when they write repair orders have to do regular followups and it is far easier when they do a VBML to do less inspection. One Annual (which by the way they dont do that either) a year at the time of renewal. In a neighborhood like mine a VBML is a "death sentence" for a property. If the owner is poor they just walk away. It doesn't take long for the city to go from VBML, to Condemn, to nuisance, to bulldozer. Banks will not touch a property if a VBML is against it. I've already talked with 1 guy who was buying a foreclosure (not a cheap foreclosure either) and because of the VBML the bank will not loan against it. In their eyes its a encumbrance (even if it doesnt show on title search) and they wont committ.So that hosue will likely sit, be vandalized and eventually demoed and he will go across the river and buy in Newport or Covington. Any way you look at it, a VBML results in redlining. If you have enough VBMLs in a neighborhood, those properties are worthless because no one will buy then, or, if they would they can't get financing, there are no comps and you couldnt get a loan. Not every neighborhood has a 3CDC who has the kind of money to "spec restore" and bring up values and provide comps. There are not a lot of people like us who can "self fund" their restoration projects and if anyone thinks I am going to hand over financial information and bank statements to city employees as part of a VBML waiver process who can't guarantee who has access to it? Well they really are stupid!. If you want me to prove liability insuranec, fine, but you better make the slumlord property owner next door a foot away do the same thing. What started out as good law with good intentions. To get "hard core" property owners and speculators to maintain their property to a minimum standard, protect first responders, and basically 'shake loose' property and get it into good hands, has been "perverted" by city inspectors as way to lighten their case load and reduce inspections , PLUS its a revenue stream for the city. The foreclosure crisis, and the fact inspectors can't easliy 'track down' a property owner means that VBML are getting slapped right and left. It is wrong and should be stopped.

Well the inspector came out and the house met the 13 points, NO surprise there. He handed us the waiver paperwork, we had it reviewed . The city expects owners to provide detailed financial committment information including bank statements , line of credit etc. We were advised that was a serious over reach of authority by city govenment, they do not have that kind of authority under a number of State or Federal laws, and we were strongly advised against turning over that kind of financial info to a city agency when there is zero guarantee about who sees it or how it is kept secure. Not to mention the violation of State and Federal privacy laws as it pertains to private property rights. City also wants owners to provide copy of 300K in liability insurance, YET the city has no ordinance requiring ALL property owners to have liabaility insurance therefore compelling a property owner under VBML to provide such proof is clearly discriminatory, creates a secondary class in application and likely violates State and Federal law as well. Had some other collegues of mine, including a retired Federal Appelate Court judge, review the ordinance, the way the city 'picks and chooses what parts of the ordinance they want to follow, the failure to provide continuty of enforcement and remedy of civil action against prior owners who failed to renew the VBML (if they had done that it would have shown up on title search, before we bought the house). In short, everyone's opinion was that the VBML is perhaps one of the most badly written ordinances they had ever seen. The city enforcement is clearly discriminatory and city inspections failed to follow the ordinance properly in the first place and they were all frankly amazed that the city was even trying to enforce an ordinance that violated dozens of State and Federal laws and appeared to facilitate institutional "redlining' of poorer neighborhoods. They were equally amazed that the city has been able to get away with it for this long! Of course I already knew all this, but it was nice to have several more opinions. It's the kind of case the Washington DC Insitute of Justice (who handeled that eminent domain case in the city of Norwood and won against the city) would have a 'field day" with! So that's where we are at at the moment. May get really interesting.

Thanks Jimmy, we actually plan on offering the stencils for sale to help others do period restoration work, and defray some of our own high restoration costs. I have duplicated the originals and am expanding based on the original designs, to include corner blocks and some accessory bandings. The big project (oh my aching back) will be stenciling the ceiling. The top "frieze' stencil will be 'flipped' up onto the ceiling and of course there will be several bandings a main ceiling fill and I will be installing a plaster center medallion which we have based on an original Cincinnati design from another house where we recieved permission to make molds of. We will be installing a reproduction 4 light electro-gasolier in the center. Stencilling a 16 x 16 foot ceiling room will be, "fun"?

Thought I'd update progress it has been a while! One of our "big finds" was the original wall stencil designs from 1871. We have duplicated those and are redoing the front formal parlor walls in a more period appropriate colorway with faux grained and marbled walls in the dado area. We have also added salvaged beadboard in the stairway and are reconfiguring the basement stairs. The opening will hosue a stained glass window to let light into what will eventually be afirst floow 1/2 bath under the stair landing. We have added a Renaissance revival arch from formal parlor to formal dining and of course that has to be trimmed out. Kitchen has been gutted and we hope to start reconstruction on that soon as well. In short busy, busy , busy!

I covered this today on my preservation blog. It should be of interest to everyone here. We can not afford to allow the city to push investment away and bulldoze any more properties. The City Inspection department has no clue about historic restoration, the costs, and the time it takes. Appatently they think we are all millionairs who will hire contractors and have it all done in a few weeks! http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2009/12/historic-fairmount-church-faces.html We REALLY need to draw a line in the sand soon and start asking hard questions, or the west side of town will just be a bunch of empty hills and neighborhoods like Fairmount, Price Hill and Sedamsville will be just a memory!.

I've worked on a couple of mixed use historic retail /condo developments in other states where we were able to get basement level parking by cutting a ramp down. Don't know if that's a possibility with those buildings. I've also worked on "lift down" projects where you have a garage door and a lift and the cars are lowered to basement parking garage. There are workarounds, I just don't know if Cincinnati code is that "adaptable" yet?

I agree with that. The problem seems to be that inspectors are ordering buildings vacant ( kind of silly since the building typically already is vacant) for minor things like broken windows or copper theft. These are typically forclosed properties that may have only been vacant a few months, not years. These are the kind of things that can easily be addressed by repair orders. BUT throwing a VBML against it makes it 'unmarketable'. Let's face it, most "old house people' get the basics done and "camp out" while they do the "pretty stuff". There is also an important consideration to be "on site' and not have to carry tools back and forth. For those people the VBML is like a big RED FLAG and going across the river seems more attractive. I know one person in the process of buying a house (not in bad shape at all) who is considering not going through because a VBML was thrown against it while it was in foreclosure. Should they be punished because HUD let a window get broken out and some scum stole the copper? Seems like it is in the city's interest to reward those people willing to come in and restore not throw red tape in their way. The problem is you can't get the city to recind an order, OR admit they made a mistake in the first place by not issuing a repair order and DO YOU , then take the risk to go ahead and buy without knowing what you are up against? We need a serious re-evaluation of the program and see if its' original intent is being served as it was created to do?

The big problem is that the original purpose of the VBML which was to make sure that the "worst of the worst' properties that had been vacant for 5-10-15 years and have serious structural issues that could impact first responders would be brought up to a 'minimum standard" of safety, is NOT the purpose these days. If a property is in foreclosure and has a broken window it is slapped with a VBML because city inspections canty track down a current owner. Rather than issue "repair orders" and have to follow up on a routine basis, it is much easier for them to slap a VBML on it and only conduct a yearly followup. In fact our Neighborhood Group is preparing a report on the Negative effects of the VBML on Neighborhood Turnaround and reinvestment and we hope to present it to the council in late January early February. We are collecting stories and data from two groups: 1.) People wo bought property and began restoration only to be "blindsided' by VBML's months later. Also people who walked away from projects because of the VBML 2.) People who were restoring in Cincinnati and now have moved accross the river to Newport or Covington. We are trying to get an idea of the investment dollars lost because of the VBML If anyone knows anyone in those catagoies they can contact me. So far we are documenting consitent failure to enforce the ordinance as written and mis-application of the ordinance on properties that never should have been under VBML but repair orders instead. We hope that given this data the council will issue a directive that the odinance be enforced properly OR that the ordinance needs modification so it is not a "dis incentive" to histoirc preservation and investment in Cincinnati. YES we know this report will likely fall on deaf ears but given the financial crisis this city is in we hope that the council hit with a REAL DOLLAR impact reports will consider it.

I watched this same thing happen in Indianapolis. All the low-mid rise warehouse buildings downtown demoed for stupid little buildings in the 1980-90's Fastforward and those tacky buildings are now gone and replaced by luxury townhouses and condo (in huge oversupply in Indy, they have a 72 month supply right now of condoes betwween 250-750K. Cincinnati is headed for the same predicament. However, in that really bad glut market, the condos that sell the fasted? The Real Silk lofts and Glove Factory lofts built in original warehouse buildings. In fact they are some of the most expensive condos downtown and some in the glove factory have been bought and combined to create multi million dollar huge lofts that have great view of the downtown. Even the very few small warhouse buildings that didnt get demoed are highly sought after single lofts. While the new development like 3Mass sit largely vacant Cincinnati seems on a path to make the SAME mistake. OR someday P&G moves to another city and we become Detroit!

I keep reading the VBML ordinance and it finally hit me. Did anyone else see this? Everything related to VBML says the "Director of Building and Inspections" and he is the one with authority to enforce under the ordinance. To declare a Building unsafe, to order it vacant, literally everything in the code says "Director of Building and Inspections". Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the city restructure things a couple of years ago. and merged Building Inspections into the "Department of Community Development". The duties and responsibilites that used tp be carried out by the previously seperate department called "Building and Inspections" now goes to the "Division of Property Maintenence Inspections" and the position of "Director of Building and Inspections" position was eliminated! While the city people may know what responsibilities were allocated to the Director of Community Development and which are now done by the "Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Division Manager",but, THE FACTS ARE, that the Municipal code, including VBML ,as its written, allocates responsibilities under the law ONLY to the position of " Director of Building and Inspections" that no longer EXISTS! So the authority to enforce the VBML, DOESN'T EXIST LEGALLY as the authority is given under the law to the Director NOT the Property Maintence Code Enforcement Divivion Manager. Under the law, code enforcement currently lacks legal standing to enforce VBML's because the Council never amended the ordinance to read "Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Division Manager" instead of Director. Think city legal knows about this?

Check with Cincinnati Preservation Association (CPA). I am pretty sure they have conducted an historic buklding inventory of the area and should have some information. You might want to contact the OTR foundation as well. The area is a resistered historic district but if much more gets torn down it could be delisted.

Jimmy, I am President of the local neighborhood association and as such routinely correspond with our city inspector via email. We have has two contentious properties in the neighborhood that we have been working closely with the city and him, on for a year now. He is in my neighborhood at least once or twice a week. In fact just this last month or so the city took down a house on my block. This inspector, his supervisors were ALL on my block. Its really is hard to miss my house. There is not one email or phone call where he expressed any concern or issue about the house or progress we have made nor are there any notes in the city database to indicate a problem. As I say this issue "surfaced" when I started asking hard questions on my Historic preservation blog regarding the use of Federal CDGB funding and the section 106 review as our neighborhood association is working to save a couple of properties the city has slated for demo that are obviously historic and should have been subject to review under 106 as relates to the use of federal funds (CDBG) for demolition of property more than 50 years old, and the city 2010 budget which allocate over 1.1 million in federal CDGB funds for demo funding.

Thanks GFI. What is amazing is the 'selective enforcement issue. The house next door 3 inches away, I might add, has falling asbestos shingles, a 2 foot hole in the south wall, No gutters or downspots and 3 foot tall weeds. AND it's rented out for 650.00 a month. The other house next door vacant since 2005 has holes in the roof, a collapsing rear porch, broken windows and I began turning it in when we bought our house. Nothing! The house behind us has been vacant for 7 years. Has holes in the roof (visable from the street) a falling chimney, glass falling out of unglazed windows, loose box gutters and a front "deck/porch ' that you cant walk on because you would fall through it. One of the houses across the street was first turned in as vacant/open in 2004, still vacant, roof falling off loose flashing, broken windows high weeds and grass. NOT ONE of those properties has a VBML order. Oh and the house down the street had a major fire 8 months ago and is still stamnding with the back door open and serious structural issues! I am seriously thinking of inviting the media this weekend for a press confernence and tour of my neighborhood. Maybe city inspections can explain why I am surounded by property that 'should' be condemned and I, the only one actually doiung anything is under the gun. Apparently my city inspector is wearing blinders!

Oh, I've been talking with Ed Cunningham. Personally I wonder if this "issue" would have come up had I not been blogging extensively about the city's demolition policy and what appears to me their failure to properly follow section 106 review as it applies to historic buildings. Maybe I should not have made that request to city planning to be notified when property was sent over from inspection to planning for historic review, under section 106 before they sent it on to the state? I have actually READ the municipal code, guess what? There is no "Continuity Clause" in the ordinance, meaning that there is no language that says a VBML continued in force after the sale/transfer of a property. It has always been my position that the original VBML was first ordered in 2005 by a "heavy handed' inspector who was basically dealing with an undereducated owner who inherited the house and was dealing with probate who had broken window and an open door, the inspector became fed up and slapped them with a VBML. The fact is that the city never filed a lien when they failed to pay the VBML the following year, as required under the ordinance. Nor did they file it with the mortgage holder pre or post foreclosure or with Freddie Mac and HUD whom I bought the property from THREE YEARS LATER! BECAUSE the city failed to file a lien (as required under the ordinance for unpaid VBML fees) it would not show up on a title search as part of title insurance. We could talk about state consumer protection law and Federal housing law for days, but my position is because the city failed to follow its own ordinance under municipal code, they basically abandoned enforcement of the VBML, not to mention the ordinance as written and adopted has no continuity clause. I should not NEED to apply for a waiver since the city FAILED under the code to keep the VBML enforced and matter of real estate records, by filing the lien. A general contractor has a reasonable periods in which to file a mechanics lien so it shows up on title search so does a municipality. Deliver of free and clear merchantable title is just that. The city cannot operate in a vacuum.

Welcome to "Historic Preservation Hell", you may expect your "nasty gram" from city code enforcement any day now. You need to go to the city code enforcment site,type in your address and see just what you are in for. http://cagisperm.hamilton-co.org/cpop/permits/address.aspx Despite the fact that our house is being restored to Secretary of the Interior standards, we have spent more money than a five block area on restoration of our house so far. In fact our is the only house to be painted in our neighborhood in the last 10 years. Our yard is cut and maintained, we started a neighborhood association and crimewatch, we recieved another nasty gram from Mr Sean Minihan, a supervisor at city inspections advising us we were being called to a pre pros hearing regarding the "condition" of our property and our apparent unwillingness to pay the city 900.00 for a VBML(Vacant Building Maintenance Liscense), required by the city in 2005 because a previous owner (that the city ultimately drove into foreclosure due to taking out loans they coundnt afford to fix the things they thought they had to fix to keep their house that they inherited when the elderly owner died) had broken windows and wouldnt comply "fast enough' for the city so they slapped a VBML on them. Of course since the city doesnt actually file liens for unpaid VBML's ( they are afraid they might wind up with more property), when you do a title search as part of your title insurance, the VBML doesnt show up and you are "blindsided". Interestingly the city municipal code mandates them to file liens but they ignore their own muni code and only folow what they want to, when they want to. I've included before and afters to show you what we have done to our house. " apparently according to Mr Minihan we are not in complience and are just a BIG BAD SLUM property owner of some kind. Amazingly enough the house 3 inches away from us has falling asbestos siding a 2 foot wide opening in the wall on one side, no gutters, and the lot wasnt cut this summer. It is occupied and the tenants are paying 650.00 a month in rent! The house behind us had been vacant for 5 years, has rotted front deck, falling gutters, visible holes in the roof, collapsing chimney YET somehow, the city inspector hasnt "noticed' that or a dozen other homes on our block in serious disrepair. We have had a buned out house sitting on our block for 8 Months now that is ready to fall down. If you are Historic Preservationist in this city who is anti demolition, expect to be targeted by city officials ESPECIALLY if you question why the city is planning on spending 1,143,000.00 in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant)funds on demolition in 2010 Ultimately I may have to file a federal lawsuit against the city on the basis of discriminatory application, violation of state and federal consumer and housing laws, to stop this insantity! Now if you are a non profit? Cincinnati Public Schools or 3CDC? You can let your property fall apart and get around to fixing things when you want to. Welcome to Historic Preservation in Cincinnati ( or as I call it The Next Detroit!)

I thought it most interesting that the people doing all the "politically correct complaining" about the relocation aspect were not complaining about the deteriorating living conditions over the last 10 years the residents endured! Cincinnati will get a world class hotel. A histoirc building is restored to what it once was "a Luxury Hotel. Construction and Hospitality indiustry jobs are created and people who need good quality housing will be relocated into a better living conditions than they presently enjoy. That is a big win all around.

Part of the problem at least in Cincinnati seems to be that the city has Blight=Bulldozer mentality, much like Detroit. They are planing to allocate over1 million dollars in CDBG fund for demolition. This depletes the county tax base. For example the assessed value of the 21 properties at the Ocober nuisance Hearing was 1.2 million if those properties are vacant lots they pay about 50 a year each in taxes. The reason we see so many levy requests is the shrinking tax base and that affects everyone.

Surely that property qualifies as potentially historic? I wonder if city is using CDGB funding and if so if they followed the section 106 oblications required under Federal and State guidlines?