RestorationConsultant

I find it somehwat ironic that people argue about what to call an neighborhood that is in serious danger of being bulldozed by a city government who lives for "demo monies' from the Feds. However it brings up a interesting point. OTR is a huge area as a historic district. Yet there are distinct neighborhoods within it. Gateway is a pretty cohesive neighborhood, Findlay Market is a neighborhood, Pendleton is a neighborhood. Some areas however are essentialy block clubs or 5 or 6 people on an otherwise abandoned block who are in the same boat together and organized based on a common need. Others are still a wasteland devoid of any life at all. That may be part of the problem with OTR from a preservation standpoint and may point to a larger problem that holds preservation back. Cincinnati has 52 official "neighborhoods" Most of them are so large as to make any sort of effective governance or consesus building impossible. Other cities Cincinnati's size may have 200-300 neighborhoods and they have their own specific issues . Those smaller neighborhoods and block clubs generally act under the umbrella of a larger neighborhood usually a Not for profit "development' group that funnels the monies into the specific areas.And it works pretty well in those cities. But the neighbrohoods that know their own issues best fight the battles, and other neighborhoods will join them on key issues. I think one of the things holding back OTR is the lack of neighborhood building. By that I mean "small organizations" at the local block levels feeding up to one larger organization that can act as unified voice for the entire area and more effectively lobby city officials on the 'big picture' items. We had to form our own neighborhood organization of Knox Hill because it was impossible to get things done at the community council level of South Fairmount or North Fairmount, both of whom "cringe" at the idea of historic preservation. In one year we have brought new people in who are restoring. Set up a neighbrohood website and crime watch, actively taken on the city over its demo policy and "VBML redlining" and will make our application for National Historic District this year. That would never have happened under the community council model which I view as very "political" and "tightly controlled" by the city, which doesnt like "loose cannons groups" , highly motivated neighborhood groups and residents, not beholding to city handouts, that are willing to fight to save their neighborhoods from a city government they see as part of the problem, not the solution. We are an track to go somewhere and frankly in an area the city "wrote off" a long time ago as expendable. I think Cincinnati's Preservationists need to stop "begging" the city to "let them save buildings"' and start saying "hey we are going to fix this and you can help if you want, but please get out of our way. We are tired of the roadblocks to turnaround." There is a reason that Convington and Newport are turning around while OTR struggles. Its the attitude of their local government there who seem to see Preservation/restoration as an economic opportunity.

Interesting to note that a lot of property appears to be fast tracked from VBML to Nuisance Hearing in 2009 in the very neighborhoods the city is 'targeting" as part of their program.. I am pretty familiar with the process myself having worked in the Historic presevation field for 20 plus years and dealt with grants, funding, sitting on several neighborhood and community development boards and dealing with section 106 review in several states. Over that time I watched more than one city official dragged off to federal prison over the years too. The facts are the city is escalating its Demolition activities and have essentially embraced the failed "Detroit Model" of urban renewal, a model largely abandoned by every forward thinking city and planner in this country. The biggest problem I see is a historic Preservation Community who is afraid to challenge the 'good ole boy' city government on Preservation issues. Perhaps why we are losing hundreds of property to demolition every year. You do not see 100-150 yr old houses being demoed on an almost daily basis in most major cities anymore. In fact, it practically takes an act of congress with the outcry from the public and preservaytion community. We do not need demolitions, we need facade grants, paint up /fix up funds, development incentives to bring more Out of State preservation minded people INTO Cincinnati and live here. The reason OTR and other Urban neighborhoods struggles and Newport/Covington are turning around solely lies with Cincinnati Government who does nothing but throw up roadblocks and red tape while keeping local demo contractors nicely employed.

Rando lets do the math. average cost is 10-15k per property to demo. 2.4 million, thats a lot of houses. Factor in the impact of local property tax revenue soem of the houses on the city demo list pay 2-4000 in taxes per year. The taxes on a vacant lot is 120.00 a year. Now factor in the cost to maintain those vacant lots: Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inflation rate, this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years. The study only included the costs of five out of the fifteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management. Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. The St. Paul, Minnesota budget for maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition saves $4,697,25 the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance costs over a twenty-year period. Many of these houses do not have structural issues. The city can make 'emergency stabilization repairs" and bill the owner or go for receivership. We teh taxpayer get stuck with the cost of maintaining these vacant lots, the property tax base goes down. A lot more people are employed by restoration than by demo. Hopefully our formal complaint to HUD will slow the city demo activities. If we do not start doing something we will look like Detroit in another decade

This is getting way interesting. You certainly cannot demo a school using Federal funds . Amyone read the State of Ohio Sunshine law lately? I didn't hear of any public hearing on this did anyone else?

I think the city is trying to 'spin' the issue because they are worried. Knox Hill Neighborhood Association filed a formal "citizen complaint" with HUD last week, after we contacted Ohio Preservation, who holds the programatic agreement (which the city hasn't provided a new one yet) with the city on Section 106 review and it appeared to them the city lacks a proper process to get public input. REQUIRED under the law. All the Urban Conservation office does is compare the address to the historic districts and surveys. That is not enough according to Ohio Preservation office for Section 106 compliance. Once HUD reviews the complaint they forward it to the City and the city has limited time to respond and document how they are in compliance. If HUD determines they are out of complance they will stop or withhold all funding until the City is in compliance. Meaning NO MORE DEMO MONEY! No CDBG money for Demo, No NSP money for demo. The city will be forced by HUD to properly review any property over 50 yrs old and receive public input on if that property may be eligible for listing . If it's found to be potentially eligible , the city must then conduct a feasibility study of repair/stabilization costs vs demo. That also applies to rehab projects for conversion to low income housing. If local preservationists disagree with the city determination it would be forwarded to state for review. That happens, and we will ask the city council to force a review of ALL properties that have been declared a nuisance and may be demoed as no proper review has taken place. We are prepared to go to Federal Court if we have to. But its time local preservationsists have a voice, in the process as Federal Law requires instead of the city doing it in private in the Urban Conservators office. We are also looking into if the city may be violating State Sunshine laws in the way they use capital improvment funds for Demolition since their appears to be no public input on that either. The Nuisance Board 'may have' a governmental Conflict of Interest Issue as the Board is made up of people in a supervisory position of the inspectors bringing the case.

Seth, I think the best thing anyone can do who wants to save Cincinnati architecture is to talk about it. Of course, on here, we are all preaching to the choir. I mean other forums, other cities, anywhere architecture, particularly Victorian architecture, is discussed. I am currently working on a book about Second Empire Architecture of Cincinnati that will hopefully be out later this year, I still have some things to get to my publisher becasue I keep locating more houses. People, if they know anything at all about Cincinnati, tend to know it for it's Italianate Architecture, yet Cincinnati may have the largest collection of Second Empire Architecture in the midwest yet few know about it. The first time I came to Cincinnati I was absolutely blown away. there are 12 Second Empire in my neighborhood alone yet some cities the size of Cincinnati may have only 1 or 2. Cincinnati may have close to 10,000 remaining. In fact, when I have preservationists I know, coming in from out of town, I warn them that they are not prepared for what they are about to see and bring extra memory drives for the camera because you will fill it in nothing flat. Cincinnati has some of the best architecture in the nation. So promoting our architecture to anyone who will listen, is, in my opinion, the best way to save it. That will bring Out-of-State people in and there simply are not enough preservationists in Cincy to restore it all. Of course if you win the lottery I can make you a list of things to buy!

GFI, It's a relative thing. To people from Cincinnati, OTR and West end seems lilke a dangerous place. I've been restoring in urban neighborhoods for 20 plus years now. More than once I was the only owner occupant on the block, or several blocks. I've had to stare down drug dealers, prosititues and I even had someone empty a gun clip at a house I was restoring while I was in it. I bought one house that had a murder two days before closing on the front porch. My first official project when I closed was hosing the blood off the porch. I guess it depends on what you've seen. OTR and West end seem like the burbs compared to some neighborhoods I've restored in. I guess its just your perspective. I like Dayton St too and we almost bought there, but we needed more space and the place in Knox Hill is on 2 lots and gives me room for carriage house. Of course the Fairmount area is a 'dangerous' place too! I thought people on city data forum were going to have coronary when I told them I bought there, but those people are afraid to get off the freeway when they come downtown.

The 10.00 transacrion was a "Hauck House museum House" and it was a transfer from one non profit preservation group to CPA . CPA put out an PFP (Request for Proposals) last year and I understand it is supposed to be operated as another Museum. These transaction between non profiits do not reflect "market value' because clearly Hauck House is work more than that . The auditors site says 160K I believe and thats probably unrealistically low. Market for that house would likely be over 300K if it ever sold publically. Several of the homes are under restoration over there and permits (I believe) take some time to kick in (probably after final inspections) and then there would be a transfer of that information) Some of those houses may be under tax abatement 10yr tax abatement 15 for LEED. I know alot of people got some pretty hefty equity lines a few years back ( when you could get equity lines) and spent it well on restoration Here are some links to photos I have taken on Dayton: http://picasaweb.google.com/victiques/DaytonStreetHistoricDistrict# http://picasaweb.google.com/victiques/SecondEmpireTownhouse# http://picasaweb.google.com/victiques/824DaytonStreet#

Believe it or not, Michael not everyone investing in the downtown 'needs' financing. Stop trying to be the "Downtown/OTR expert" and throw your energies into making it a better place! Many homes sell on Dayton Street without even needing to go to a realtor. In a way, because of private sales, that is a problem for getting comps for some people, but the fact people are willing to take the financial risk to invest 250-750K of their own money in properties is a VERY good thing for all of us. You might want to walk the 8-900 block of Dayton and see what is actually going on. You really can walk around, no gangbangers, rapists or thugs to harrass you. I gave a couple of tours over the summer to out of town preservationists and nobody carried guns or mace . We stoped and talked to residents out working in their yards and our cars were still where we parked them when we got back from our tour. FYI: To people on the east or west coast who live in multi million dollar townhomes down the street from a meth clinics, Citylink (if it EVER really gets off the ground) is more of "minor annoyance" to anyone who has lived in a major city and, at best, a short term "distraction", because in 10 years their clients will all be out in the townships.

Really? I am working with a client right now who just bought a house over there and they have a 750K restoration budget. Two properties over there have had 500K Plus restorations in the last year and there are two well fiunded museum houses and a couple from the east coast who are restoring and planning a luxury B&B. Dayton Street wasn't called "Millionairs Row" for no reason. In 5 years Dayton Street will probably be the most expensive housing in the downtown. There is a pending at 100K right now for fixer, and two houses I know of sold privately over 250K last year. Almost all the section 8 is gone. There is a very active crime watch and a couple of neighborhood group over there. There is one left at 117K in the MLS that will probably be converted to single family when its sold. There are still some bargains over there but if you have decent credit and a good downpayment there are comps to draw off of to get a working appraisal. But then most of the people that seem to be buying over there are executives who work downtown and don't have financing issues. That area is probably turning around faster than anyone realizes

Knox Hill was a German enclave that sat on a hill netween North and South Fairmount, something no one apparently thought to look into when you have some 6-9000 square ft mansions and a bunch of high end cottages, By teh way the city city wrote off as a slum neighborhood 10-15 years ago. The history: http://sites.google.com/site/knoxhillneighborhoodassoc/ The Schuetzen Verin, bought from the baptist seminary built in 1950 which sat where Christian Park Overlook is now. It was the most exclusive German Beer Garden and shooting club in the city. The wealthy German community Built their weekend cottages there. It reamained a German enclave well into the 1940's. The Hauck family donated the land after the club burned in 1880's to the city and Christian park was originally called Schuetzebuckle Park until the anti german sentiment hit. Amazing what peopl dont know aout the city they grew up in!

Good points Sherman, I say we try anything that will work. The big problem we have is we have tens of thousands of buildings that are probably vacant. This city proper went from 500,000 people in 1930 to 330,000 today a loss of 170,000 people and we still have many of those buildings sitting empty. People who already live in Cininnati are not going to own 2-3 houses. We MUST bring in new people from outside Cincinnati and instead of putting roadblocks in front of them like VBML,waivers, high permit fees and such we should be doing just the opposite. We should using our CDBG fund (community DEVELOPMENT block grant) funds for facade grants ,or no interest loans to people buying vacant or foreclosed property. We should have building stabilization programs rather than a demolition programs. We need paint up/fix up programs for low income residents who need help with their properties. We should be cutting permit fees in half , or waiving them completly, for people buying vacant properties along with the tax abatement we currently do. We NEED a Land Bank. Cincinnati Urban Neighborhoods are a patient in "critical care" and instead of throwing everything we can at it to make it get better, we Euthanize them by demolition. We need to attract 50000 "preservation minded" people to Cincinnati this decade. I was able to convince a dozen or so to come to Cincinnati last year, in spite of the roadblocks. We need a National Marketing Campaign to promote Cincinnati Historic Architecture opportunities AND we need the business community behind us (it benefits them) and the banks to provide financing WHICH they do in other cities. We have to stop saying "please let us save historic buildings" to local Government and start saying 'We will save these historic buildings and if you won't help us, city govenment, then get out of our way!" Otherwise by the end of the decade, Covington and Newport will be restored and the most exclusive place to live in the Metro area and Cincinnati will look like Detroit.

Actaully the VBML is already being debated at the state court level and may soon be at the Supreme Court depending on what happens next. The City of Cincinati is currently defending several lawsuits over VBML and several more are in process from what I understand. Ultimately that issue will wind up in Federal Court probably based on "governmental redlining' and discriminatory application. Of course that is nothing compared to what happens if the city is found to have violated Federal law with CDBG funds, didn't have proper section 106 review process with public input and record keeping AND violated due process to all those property owners who had their property demoed by the city, using Federal money. Thats a BIG Federal Class action lawsuit. A good friend of mine who happens to be a retired Federal Appellate Court Judge has looked at the VBML ordinance , its application and it's waiver process and he said it's not worth the paper its written on. Its discriminatory in application and denies certain due processes. But I am here to talk about Preservation issues rather than the failure of this city government to write repair orders rather than create "revenue streams" with the VBML program. I am happy to discuss preservation and organizational strategies however.

"It may be your attitude towards the city and the tactics of bashing it every chance you get that is holding you back. You look for problems much more than you look for solutions, you aim at the roadblocks vs the simple bypass that is right in front of you. I wish you well and hope you continue to restore buildings but your constant pessimism may serve more as a dissuasion to people looking to rehab." No Michael I've just been working in cities that used to be in the shape Cincinnati is now and if you sit back and deal with " Simple bypasses" and let the city get away with it you have a Bunch of vacant lots. Our neighborhood has formally complained to State Preservation who holds the programatic agrement with the city on its use of federal CDBG funds. The city appears to have been violating Federal laws without conducting a open Section 106 review in which the Presevation community has an input on the impact of demolition where federal funds are used whcih means maybe hundreds of properties could have been saved if we had had a process in place for proper input. Based on our information we recieved from State Pressevation we have filed a formal "citizen complaint" with HUD which will compel the city to reply as to how they conduct section 106 hearings. IF, they can not, document the process, HUD can stop the flow of Federal monies for demolition, until they have a process in place. Further it could mean a review of those properties already on the demo list and could cause a removal of dozens of properties on that list in OTR alone not to mention other areas. The city and county is about to get 24 Million in NSP funds and a significant part of that will be used for demos in Avondale, Price Hill and other urban areas. If we don't have a process in place while you are working out "simple bypasses' with city officials we could lose much of Cincinnati to a Bulldozer, in the next few years.

Seth, the one thing Ive learned from my year in Cincinnati preservation community is we are a 'timid' bunch. I've upset a few of the locals by actively challengeing the "status quo" and the way this city conducts the VBML program and their demolitions whcih may violate Federal Law. The Preservation Community spends a lot of time on OTR, it is an important area and in fact I'm looking for the right building to restore and put my business in, so I understand the importance of OTR. That being said we have a lot of great historic neighborhoods that are being decimated by the city's demolition policy which I call "Blight=Bulldozer". We need to concentrate on all of our Urban neighborhoods, not just OTR. My neighborhood of Knox Hill which is planning on submitting its registry nomination this year, is in a constant battle with the city over demolitions. If the city spent a fraction of the money they spend on demolition on stabilization,my neighborhood could be turned around in a year. Mt Auburn, Avondale, Price Hill, Walnut Hills , Fairmount and Westwood are in a constant battle to try to save historic architecture. Cincinnati is a complex Preservation situation. And as a Historic preservation consultant with 20 yrs experience who has worked in Charleson SC, Savannah, Louisville , New Orleans, San Francisco, and Indianapolis, I see the potential for this city but the Preservation Community needs to "grow a pair" and take on the city and its demo policy.

No Micheal you couldnt just torpedo a bidder. you do not get on the problem property list overnight. These people are real problem property owners. Therse are people with multiple violations, who have failed to show up for court dates, people who have rented property raided multiple times for drug and prostitution. They typically own multiple properties and all are bad. Indy doesnt bulldoze house for no reason like Cincinnati does. They do not bulldoze over no downspouts for example. They also know how to use Receivership as a tool and generally speaking they will almost always repair rather than demo. Demolition is a last resort, as it should be in Cincinnati.

When you attend a tax sale you have to register, They run your other property ownership and they have a problem property database. If you have open orders, you are in the data base and you do not get a number You also do not get a number if you have delinquent taxes. In order to transfer and record a deed in many states you have to pay all delinquent taxes. I have been lobbying for this change for Ohio as it would eliminate the "slumlord shuffle of LLC"S trading property in pools for zero dollars to avoid city orders.

Michael the best thing I thing Indy has its its FLIP program run by Indiana Historic Landmarks which is like CPA except they have money. They buy endangered property, or get it from the city. they stabilize the outside, new roof and paint and then sell the property to a financially qualified person or developer who finishes the restoration to prservation standards. They have 18 months with extensions granted on large homes, to complete it or it goes back to Landmarks. Sometimes slumlords will choose to donate the property to Landmarks rather than face fines and repair orders from the city. Sometimes they can donate to a local neighborhood group, perhaps not qualified to "hold' property under its 501C3 abd it can be stabilized and resold. Indiana now has a law that prevents the owner of any property who has orders against it, from buying any forclosed property and they are prohibited from buying tax sale property if taxes are not current on property they already own. Flip program Properties: http://www.historiclandmarks.org/ForSale/Pages/default.aspx The hardest part for most people restoring is getting the exterior and roof done properly. Common prolem in OTR. By stabilizing the house it makes the interior restoarion easier. I wish 3CDC could be pursuaded to start a program like this as it would allow them to let go of some property they have been holding and encourage others to come in. There is no way they will ever be able to restore everything they own.

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-over-rhine-building-headed-for.html 24 Elder. There has been no section 106 hearing held on this property Required if federal dollars ae used. Even if they are using capital Improvemnt funds fro demo,(Who Knows?) there ought to be some sort of public input if tax dollars are used.

The house at 1752 Fairmount may not look like much but it is one of only 4 pre civil war houses remaining in Knox Hill. Our Knox Hill Neighborhood group is currently researching the neighborhood to make application for Historic District status. We notified the city of its importance and it's contribution to the architectural history of the area. As usual, the City Nuisance Board "Rubber stamped" its demo. Our neighborhood group formally notified the city today that the citys' determination is NOT acceptable and we have formally requested the city to produce the Section 106 review documentation that was required to be done on this property PRIOR to its going to the Nuisance Hearing Board.. The city is REQUIRED to conduct a section 106 review when a historic or property that may be historic over 50 years old may be eligible for historic status. We can find NO RECORD of any public hearing being done, no request for comment, NOTHING. Our Neighborhood Association is Fed Up with the arrongance of city officials who feel they can "ignor' federal law. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires the city first consider alternatives that would avoid or minimize any adverse effect of demolition. The process should involve an analysis of objective cost estimates for rehabilitation that would allow the house to meet local code and comparing the estimates with demolition costs. The City of Mansfield Ohio had 1.6 million in federal funds suspended because the city didn't have a signed agreement with at least one local group interested in historic review. Consulting party status" can and must be bestowed on groups with "standing" and that each must be dealt with by the city. We are "awaiting" a reply from the City of Cincinnati on the 106 review on 1752 Fairmount, but, if none is not forthcoming we intend to formally complain to the State Preservation office (just like Mansfield Ohio Preservationists did). The City of Cinncinnati is supposed to have a programatic agreement with Ohio Preservation and they are supposed to have a 106 review process in place.

At least Mansfield is working on a process. Cincinnati's Section 106 compliance is a joke and they think the rules do not apply to them.We have a pre cilvil war house in our neighborhood Of Knox Hill that we indicated to the city was a contributing structuure and important to our planned registy nomination for the neighborhood. What did they do? The declared it a nuisance anyway and now its on the Demo list. I really wish they would come in and yank the Federal demo money and FORCE them to do proper section 106 review. It is Very frustrating when you have thousands of Cincinnati properties sitting on demo lists and NONE of them had proper review!

If you go to the auditors site and go to the image tab you can look back at the building in 1999 when there were buildings on either side of it. You can stop demolition by neglect by requiring that the original facade MUST be retained. That means they have to spend thousands of dollars to put in a reinforcing steel superstructure to retain the facade and use it as part of any new development. This is mandatory in many American cities in Historic Districts. Time Cincy did it too. Then maybe we could stop the demo by neglect! Maybe it would disuade speculators from buying hsitoric buildings for the land development value only!

The city need for several things to happen starting in 2010. 1.) It needs to train it's inspectors more on Preservation issues so they can be proactive on repair issues with historic properties. 2) The city needs to scrap VBML entirely and go to a real repair orders only. Vacant buildings do not encourage redevelopment and only bring adjacient values down. We should not "Facilitate" letting buildings sit vacant for years and in reality that is what VBML does. 3) A full time housing court that can divert these properties that are in "demolition by neglect mode" to receivership so repairs can be made immediately. 4)A program of INCENTIVES to encourage historic restoration such as reimbursement of permit fees. Facade Grants. Paint up/fix up programs for low income property owners. 5) Use CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) funds for development and restoration NOT demolition. 6) When demolition Must occur, the original building facade must be left and any new development must utilize that facade for the new project. MANY cities already do this.

The VBML waiver process is flawed, number one you are acknowledging the VBML determination, in most cases on property that should not have ever been determined as such other than a overworked inspector who only wants to do one inspection per year rather than follow up several times on repair orders The city wants you to provide financial information to them yet have no privacy policy in place, nor can they tell you just who has access to such information. I've had the VBML requirements and the ordinance itself reviewed by legal experts including two retired federal court judges and everyone agrees that violates a number of state and federal laws. Maybe you are OK with some paper pusher(or anyone else with access to a file cabinet, having access to your financial information but I do not. Plus the city does not require the same proceedure for a general permit. The city wants you to also provide proof of liability coverage which is not a city wide requirement for all property owners. Creates special class and is discriminatory in application. What needs to happen is with legitamate property where a VBML was placed. The city should suspend the VBML requirement the minute the property owner pulls permits and should (to encourage development) refund those permits fees when the property is restored as an incentive to bring more people in to but distressed propertry. The fact is that the VBML process, and the waiver process, unfairly discriminates against lower income property owners. I have actually spoke with people who just walked away from a property and let it go into foreclosure because of a VBML. There are several homes in my neighborhood where that exact thing has happened. The city never considered the foreclosure crisis or the fact we have inspectors with 600 plus case loads now. The VBML was designed to be for those "worst of the worst" properties, vacant for years, owned by people with no intention to do anything with them, not for houses with a broken window where some copper thief broke in. It has simple become 'revenue stream' for the city and is being used in a way it was never designed for. As for Historic District status, that normally only applies to exteriors. I've written secveral registry and conservation district nominations over the years and the net effect is a 20 percent increase in property values in 3 years and higher owner occupant rate. I've said it before and I'll say it again. we need better trained inspectors who write repair orders and a full time housing court and a landbank.

Ed Cunningham is a good guy, dealing with , in my opinion, a legislative "bad situation" of an VBML ordinance that was a good idea 10 years ago, but doesn't work now that people actually want to come to this city and restore. Throw in the foreclosure crisis and the fact that VBML is a 'revenue stream' for the city and its not a good mix! Ive got 1.2 million dollars worth of restoration going on right now, by residents in a neighborhood the city wrote off 10 years ago. If I could take VBML out of the equation and just deal with normal permits I'd have 6 homes straddled with VBML's with new owner occupants willing to buy "slum property' from out state Investors who could care less about my neighborhood. That would be another 1 Mil in restoration. I've 'turned around neighborhoods' but this city stand in the way. It does not make sense since out neighborhood could be a major tax revenue base? You would think the city would rather have 200-350K properties rather than 5K ones? We plan on pursuing historic district status in 2010 just to slow the "blight=bulldozer' mentality of the city down and get proper section 106 review on properties slated for demo using CDBG funds. There is some other "agenda" going on. (it's coming out of the city managers office)