Cincinnati has a rule in place - VBML- that attempts to discourage property owners from letting their buildings rot. I assume the intent is to discourage demolition by neglect.

 

At least in my neighborhood (Mount Auburn ) I see several close-by properties where the owners have swerved around these hurdles by playing the last-minute waiting game, pleading various hardships, transferring ownership to bogus owners, such as fake nonprofits, and just plain old obliviousness.  Years have gone by with no positive actions, nothing but code violation wrist-slaps, squatter break-ins and decline.

 

And then, when the skeeves like this finally let their roof leak and rot sets in, the city tears it down for them.

 

There are once-nice old buildings being destroyed this way, and I still see the law too weighted toward "property rights" of bad owners without enough emphasis on the fact that a historic (or nearly historic) building is like a living thing and affects the neighborhood where it stands. 

 

Have any communities with a similar problem found a way to light a bigger flame under the bad owners?

In Chicago they have pretty strict laws against vacant property.  Plywood is banned from being placed over windows.  Vacant property must have all openings plated over with VPS or similar product.  Long time vacant property can use CMU or brick to cover over windows.  Buildings with loose tiles or bricks must have a scaffold out front over the sidewalk and must pay the city rent to keep it there.  In addition the owner will pay rent for the scaffold equipment. 

 

Any property that has a dangerous condition inside will be sealed by the city and marked by a 2'x2'  "X" on the front of the property.  This X declares the building is believed to be sealed and empty and there is no need for emergency personnel to enter the building.  When there is a red "X" on the building, owners may not enter their property without contacting the city first. 

 

Most owners in Chicago keep their buildings in good condition.  Banks are the worst offenders and don't always follow the rules.  The city now has a land bank that can help move vacant building inventory into the hands of people with money to get them renovated. 

VBML is a disaster, particularly in a city with as rich an architectural heritage as Cincinnati I'm hoping the buildings your showing above weren't torn down because of it :(

 

The sad thing is when it first came out the awful local paper the Enquirer talked about how good it was to eliminate crime causing old buildings - instead Cincinnati now has cleared lots that are dumping grounds.  Its crazy that Cincinnati doesn't at least require some sort of fencing on areas where buildings were demoed to prevent t his kind of blight.

 

I'm surprised I haven't heard the CPA fighting it, they need to be a way more visable organization, Cincinnati should be in crisis mode for loosing everything.

There's an email here, from the first days of VBML

http://lists.northside.net/pipermail/cpop/2006-May.txt

It says they first tested it in Avondale, East Price Hill and Northside.

I get why they did it but the unintended consequences seem to have gotten out of hand.

I live on Elm st. near Liberty in Over The Rhine in a place we completely rehabbed, and we own the 4 story vacant building next door (that we're currently putting a roof and box gutters on).

 

I am familiar with the VBML and don't have much problem with it other than one thing: if you don't meet the VBML standards, which are completely logical and serve to preserve the property, and you are not moving toward meeting them, then you should pay the VBML fee. Plus, this fee should be larger than it currently is. But if you do meet the standards, or are *steadily* making measurable progress toward them, then you should not pay any fee so long as you keep your property in that condition.

 

By making everyone pay the VBML fee, it removes a big incentive to improve the property so that it will be preserved for future rehab.

 

I see buildings that are falling down due to neglect, not due to the VBML. In fact, if the VBML guidelines were enforced the buildings wouldn't be falling down due to neglect, because they would be watertight, brick would be maintained, and exterior metal would be painted.

 

I also think that someone has not met VBML standards, and has not paid their VBML penalty for not doing so, for a certain period of time, should be automatically sued by the City in an efficient, expedited process, and have the property taken away if they can not show a plan and implement that plan within 1 year. Those properties needs to be banked and quickly gotten into better and more capable hands that can properly bring them up to VBML standards.

 

In short, I guess I just don't get the intensity of the hatred for the VBML. I also don't understand why the City can not actively propose and implement logical changes that would dramatically increase the rate that at risk properties are turned over.

 

By the way, individuals can sue neighbors in Ohio to have their properties declared a public nuisance. That creates significant pressure for the derelict owner to sell the property (or give it away to an organization like OTRADOPT) or have it placed into the hands of a receiver who can make improvements. This sort of thing should be done much more on an individual level by "good" OTR property owners.

In Chicago they have pretty strict laws against vacant property...

 

And many neighborhoods in Chicago are virtually wiped clean of buildings, ala Detroit.  I know Chicago is very aggressive with demolition too.  Maybe being too strict means it's easier to demolish than to maintain?  I don't know if that's really a good thing. 

 

I'll admit I don't know a lot about real estate law, but I wish we could see a situation where the city would "repossess" buildings from delinquent owners and sell them for $1 to someone who's required to bring them up to a certain habitable condition within some amount of time.  The problem is that any fines, leins, or delinquent taxes accrue to the property, rather than the owner.  A new owner should be able to come in and get the place fixed up without having to settle the debts accumulated by someone else.  Am I completely off-base here? 

^I agree completely. After 2+ (maybe fewer) years of delinquent taxes the city should have the right to take the property and sell it to another owner for $1. This should be used with discression or within certain rules. If the owner is responsive to the city just not paying taxes they should be able to create a plan for future improvements to the building or come to an understanding to sell the building. The city should drop all liens on the property as well if they take ownership and sue the individual. The city should be able to advertise the property and only take ownership for a single day. The original owner should retain ownership until a new owner is found.

 

That's at least how I would like to see it happen.

 

EDIT: And for clarity, the reason I would only want the city to take ownership for a single day is so that they wouldn't end up with thousands of buildings that they are forced to maintain and end up just being a drain.

...

By the way, individuals can sue neighbors in Ohio to have their properties declared a public nuisance. That creates significant pressure for the derelict owner to sell the property (or give it away to an organization like OTRADOPT) or have it placed into the hands of a receiver who can make improvements. This sort of thing should be done much more on an individual level by "good" OTR property owners.

 

The building in the picture on the left was "given" to a phony nonprofit, run by more or less the previous owners. It has decayed since the pic was takn, but still verttical. I guess VBML has fallen down at the enforcement step.

^I agree completely. After 2+ (maybe fewer) years of delinquent taxes the city should have the right to take the property and sell it to another owner for $1. This should be used with discression or within certain rules. If the owner is responsive to the city just not paying taxes they should be able to create a plan for future improvements to the building or come to an understanding to sell the building. ...

 

ah, but my grief is with the owners who DO pay their taxes. They want their property, just not the pesky old building on it. So they just let it rot, and after a couple years the city demo's it for them! And they still have the land! Now they can build some generic units and flip 'em. Sweet ain't it?

 

VBML has been used as a funding source by the city and been abused by inspectors as a way to get minor violations "off their caseload".

 

It was meant to deal with property that had major structural violations that endangered first responders. With the foreclosure crisis, THOUSANDS, of properties were slapped with VBML for minor things like a broken window or missing downspout. 

 

The city used VBML orders to demonstarte "need' for federal CDBG funds used for demo. The Blight=bulldozer approach has been abandoned by most cities but Cincinnati uses it as a way to get FED monies and pay salaries.

 

What needs to happen is a return to code based enforcement coupled with an housing court and CDBG fund used for community redevelopment rather than demo.

 

The city used VBML to drive down property values in S Fairmount to facilitate 'low balling" property owners for the MSD project and VBML's effectively redlines communities because they drive down values, make it impossible to get a loan. The city also violated section 106 guidelines by not having public hearings. KHNA (Knox Hill Neighborhood association) filed a federal HUD complaint against the city that forced them to hold 106 reviews. The urban conservator is rubber stamping , otherwise eligible property as non eligible, to keep the Fed funds coming and there are all sorts of lawsuites out there.

 

What needs to happen is  a return to code based enforcement coupled with a hosuing court.

 

We are bulldozing our history using Fed funds.

 

 

I live on Elm st. near Liberty in Over The Rhine in a place we completely rehabbed, and we own the 4 story vacant building next door (that we're currently putting a roof and box gutters on).

 

I am familiar with the VBML and don't have much problem with it other than one thing: if you don't meet the VBML standards, which are completely logical and serve to preserve the property, and you are not moving toward meeting them, then you should pay the VBML fee. Plus, this fee should be larger than it currently is. But if you do meet the standards, or are *steadily* making measurable progress toward them, then you should not pay any fee so long as you keep your property in that condition.

 

By making everyone pay the VBML fee, it removes a big incentive to improve the property so that it will be preserved for future rehab.

 

I see buildings that are falling down due to neglect, not due to the VBML. In fact, if the VBML guidelines were enforced the buildings wouldn't be falling down due to neglect, because they would be watertight, brick would be maintained, and exterior metal would be painted.

 

I also think that someone has not met VBML standards, and has not paid their VBML penalty for not doing so, for a certain period of time, should be automatically sued by the City in an efficient, expedited process, and have the property taken away if they can not show a plan and implement that plan within 1 year. Those properties needs to be banked and quickly gotten into better and more capable hands that can properly bring them up to VBML standards.

 

In short, I guess I just don't get the intensity of the hatred for the VBML. I also don't understand why the City can not actively propose and implement logical changes that would dramatically increase the rate that at risk properties are turned over.

 

By the way, individuals can sue neighbors in Ohio to have their properties declared a public nuisance. That creates significant pressure for the derelict owner to sell the property (or give it away to an organization like OTRADOPT) or have it placed into the hands of a receiver who can make improvements. This sort of thing should be done much more on an individual level by "good" OTR property owners.

 

Well said. I think a 50% VBML reduction once you're in compliance makes sense.

What jim uber says makes sense to me. There needs to be a way for the city to get these buildings out of the hands of chronically negligent owners, and non-negligent owners should not be punished.

 

RestorationConsultant, is taking neglected properties one of the functions of the "housing court" you advocate? I'm not familiar with the term.

Housing court would be a function of county government. We currently have a limited version that's been in place for a few years. The prosecutor and municipal court announced they are getting rid of it due to budget cuts

...

I also think that someone has not met VBML standards, and has not paid their VBML penalty for not doing so, for a certain period of time, should be automatically sued by the City in an efficient, expedited process, and have the property taken away if they can not show a plan and implement that plan within 1 year. Those properties needs to be banked and quickly gotten into better and more capable hands that can properly bring them up to VBML standards....

 

THAT would be a huge improvement!