My old place on Bishop had a TIF abatement.  I believe it would apply to rental properties converted from SF homes.  But I'm not sure about the application or process.

That means there was some city level approval, I will see what I can find out, this could be interesting.

Thanks for the preliminary good news. It seems very curious that during this time of severe budgetary cutbacks and municipal layoffs, the City demolition budget appears to be getting larger and demolitions more widespread instead of being reduced like everything else. It also seems suspect that the Hamilton Co. would value this property with improvements at $203,000 yet would rather have a vacant lot with the correspondingly low value post-demolition. Demolition should apply to truly dangerous buildings-burnouts, collapsing walls and roofs, and dens of criminal activity, not routinely employed for high weeds, peeling paint, or leaking gutters. Demolition is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Code compliance should be geared towards helping owners repair their properties and in the case of significant historic homes, using all alternatives available before resorting to tearing them down. Imagine if people convicted of minor crimes were treated like Cincinnati's old homes with code violations-they would be swiftly executed, not incarcerated, rehabilitated, and released. Sorry for the rant, but this is becoming a serious issue in Cincinnati and as the historic fabric of this unique city is being lost, everyone loses. (except the demolition contractors)

If you are concerned about unnecessary demolitions, I would urge everyone to try to attend the Council Vibrant Neighborhoods Committee hearing next week regarding the OTR Foundation/Cincinnati Preservation Association initiatives. While focused on Over-the-Rhine, they would apply to all of the city's historic neighborhoods:

 

What: City Council Vibrant Neighborhoods Committee Meeting regarding the OTRF/CPA initiative

When: Tuesday, September 29, 2:00 p.m.

Where: Council Chambers at City Hall, Room 300

Implications: Vibrant Neighborhoods will be hearing arguments as to the merits of the recommendations proposed by OTRF/CPA, including changes to the municipal code, the institution of a receivership program, and early repairs to vacant buildings. These changes are critical to the future of OTR. There will be an opportunity for public comment. As this matter is highly political in nature, public support could be the determining factor in the outcomes. So come out and make your voice heard, for the sake of Over-the-Rhine and the future we all know it deserves.

I learned this morning from Margo Warminski that a local company called ResErection Inc has purchased 3 landmark mansions with plans to dis-assemble them and rebuild them out of state.

 

Full details on my hitoric Preservation blog:

http://victorianantiquitiesanddesign.blogspot.com/2009/10/3-landmark-mansion-in-eminent-danger.html

 

This represents  a major threat to retention of historic property in the city of Cincinnati and Immediate action is needed by the city council to enact ordinances preventing the removal and or moving of historic properties without a council vote. We need to mobilize EVERYONE to contact the council and the mayor to stop this. Other cities threathened with removal of historic architecture have enacted ordinaces to protect them and unless our council does this we are in serious danger of losing our architectural history which will be removed and reconstructed in 'suburban tracts" in other parts of the country.

 

The 965 Burton property is on the National registry and was built by Samuel Hannaford! It is being offered moved and rebuilt

for 2.8 million (it was bought earlier this year for less than 100K).

 

This same company is responsible for the disassemby of the Kemper house which is being rebuilt in Texas in 2010.

 

Unless IMMEDIATE ACTION id taken none of our historic architecture is safe!

^ That is absolutely ridiculous. Stealing other cities history because you choose to live somewhere that has none. Something definitely has to be done about this.

Well, I and others have sent emails and calls to our illustrious city council (whose apparently very busy trying to get re-elected) and there has not been much response.

 

Apparently the concept of saving historic structions is not on their priority list. I guess a vacant lot is going to generate tax revenue?

 

Perhaps if enough people complain loudly enough and the council understands that many consider the loss of our architectural heritage to be a serious issue, maybe?

The company apparently locates a signed-on buyer for the structure before they begin deconstruction. To save time and weight, it appears that only the primary architectural details are saved, interior walls and other materials are discarded and hauled away to the dump. In the end, there's a vacant lot left behind and a semi-faithful replica rebuilt at great expense in a distant locale. Most cities frown on this kind of activity. However, if the company were to focus solely on structures targeted by the city for demolition, (no shortage of them in Cincinnati) then they would be doing a very good deed. I think it is appalling that most Cincinnati structures scheduled for a date with the wrecking ball are torn down without any efforts made to salvage or recycle the building materials. This decidedly anti-"Green" approach for disposal of old buildings must cease-the technology for environmentally responsible recycling and salvage is already in place while landfill space is getting scarce. Even old concrete can be ground up and reused. Sure it costs more to recycle than standard demolition, but I don't see that as a bad thing. If most demolitions were quite a bit more expensive then alternatives such as adaptive re-use or rehabilitation-restoration would get more consideration. The fact that this company even exists proves how valuable these old buildings truly are.

 

 

 

 

^Features of ancient Roman ruins used to be salvaged for structure further down the line--columns, for instance.  Know what though?  They eventually barred people from being able to do that.  What was left of the ruins was to remain, as it was seen as an asset, an attraction, and of great historical significance.

I can't wait for this section of Cincinnati to become abandoned and later a ruin so I can later admire it :D

Maybe sooner rather than later, at this rate.

You may laugh, but Detroit beat Cincinnati in the ruin game long ago. So that I do not transgress the rules in some way, just enter "ruins of Detroit" in your search engine and it will reveal a site by that name which was set up a number of years ago with sobering photos of this textbook example of American urban decay. I shudder to think that gawking at the ruins of mostly abandoned, formerly industrial Midwestern American cities could make them become tourist destinations of the future. Of course, Cincinnati still has a decent chance to save what remains of its stellar architectural past, but only if enough caring people come together for that worthy goal. It doesn't seem that City officials will be of much help. The general consensus is that the incumbent City bureaucracy will remain essentially the same after the upcoming elections, so saving Cincinnati's architectural gems will remain the burden of local historic preservationists and caring citizens. It's obvious that much more effort is needed if some older and neglected Cincinnati neighborhoods are to have a future.

 

Recycling and salvage of demolished or deconstructed historic homes and buildings is not by itself a solution-the current practice of using heavy equipment to bring down structures does not leave much to be saved or recycled.

Recycling and salvage of demolished or deconstructed historic homes and buildings is not by itself a solution-the current practice of using heavy equipment to bring down structures does not leave much to be saved or recycled.

 

Operative words being "the current practice".  However, as someone already stated, it's nothing new that old building materials are recycled for new construction.  LEED-NC has a section devoted to the reuse of interior and exterior structural features.

I would also like to alert any of you that local company Building Value already performs deconstruction services as an alternative to conventional demolition.  They just moved to Northside (4040 Spring Grove Avenue) from Walnut Hills, originally relocating from Golf Manor.  Their services should be embraced and used in accordance with green initiatives in Cincinnati.  We have the Green Cincinnati Plan, but so far I've only seen sidestepping of its principles by most public officials.

 

http://www.buildingvalue-cincy.org/Deconstruction_Services/

Blueline, I'm glad that you mentioned available alternatives. It should become a preferred and routine practice to recycle and reclaim as much as possible before sending demolition debris to the landfill. Some waste is unavoidable, but with proper conservation methods, it could reduce the flow of construction materials headed to the dump from the current torrent to a trickle. I suspect the reason an environmentally responsible approach is being sidestepped by city officials is because they have a vested personal interest in maintaining the status quo. A lot of these structures being demolished could also be restored and adaptively reused, but once they are gone, they are gone forever.

It took 12 Dumptrucks to haul away the house behind ours that the city tore down. It would have been more but our neighborhood group salvaged the brackets fireplace mantles,doors, transoms, door trim beaded board and newel posts.

 

But there were things we didnt have time to save like the flooring, stair treads, and original siding and windows. Not to mention al the structural timbers that could have been saved.

 

The city spent 12K demolishing a house that had NO STRUCTURAL ISSUES and could have been saved.

 

I just did a blog story about a Italianate duplex on McMicken that the city demoed while HUD was taking the owner through foreclosure!

Famed archaeologist's house to be razed

By Steve Kemme, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 2, 2009

 

MADISONVILLE - A small Madisonville house that had been occupied in the 19th century by a man who discovered one of Ohio's most important archaeological sites will be demolished before the end of this week - despite belated efforts by neighborhood leaders to save it.

 

A week ago, the Madisonville Community Council asked the city to postpone demolition of the condemned and vacant one-story house at 6114 Prentice St. until they could determine if the structure could somehow be renovated.

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?

In looking at the property information listed on the Hamilton County auditor's site, I noticed the construction date listed is 1865. If true, that is one of the older properties in the area. Structurally, the latest property photo (2008) shows a straight and level-looking house, albeit missing the front porch. The earliest photo on the auditor's site shows the original old porch and it too, did not look that bad. As far as renovation or restoration, yes, it can be renovated-I've personally worked on houses far worse. Once again, a historic house with some maintenance issues is being targeted for demolition-about the same approach as using an elephant gun to shoot a gnat. The question begging for an answer is why must demolition always be the best way to deal with this problem? One would think because of the historical association with a noted 19th century academic, plus the 144 year old age of the house, demolition would be the last option considered. Destroying the house instead of holding the property owner responsible for maintenance issues actually encourages abandonment and neglect. Stiff fines and mandatory repairs charged back to the negligent property owners would encourage upkeep. As it now stands, a plethora of slumlord LLCs around Cincinnati look for cheap rentals to milk all the rent money they can from these older properties before the City orders them vacated and demolished. It's a very expensive "cat and mouse" game with taxpayers paying for it while the negligent property owners get a free ride. Why not put some teeth in code enforcement ordinances to force owners to maintain the property or have liens placed against them for the cost of repairs? At least in that case there would be some chance of expense recovery as opposed to demolition costs where the chances for the City to be reimbursed are almost nil. Think of the extra tax money that might be available for truly urgent needs during these tough economic times if demolition were used sparingly instead of knocking down thousands of structures every year? The millions of dollars being poured yearly into residential demolition work to resolve code enforcement issues is a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars-imagine if most of it went into renovation and repairs, not only would that generate more employment but it would keep these properties on the tax rolls and offer some return on the investment as opposed to demolition, which offers nearly none.

The Ault & Wiborg Company, being demolished in downtown Cincinnati by P&G:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,21357.msg443351.html#msg443351

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!.

 

 

 

 

Appeals board gives OK to demolish OTR building

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk Senior Staff Reporter

 

A hotly contested case involving historic conservation in Over-the-Rhine could get heat up even more, now that a city appeals board has granted land owner Gale Smith the right to demolish a run-down building on Elm Street.

 

The Cincinnati Zoning Board of Appeals ruled that Smith’s family foundation should receive a demolition permit for 1703 Elm St. It’s a 19th century Italianate building near Findlay Market where Smith’s family foundation bought nearly an entire block of properties in 2003. The properties are in the Over-the-Rhine historic district, which allows demolition only for safety reasons.

 

 

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/12/21/daily39.html

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.

 

^ Here's the building: 1703 Elm St, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Streetview

 

Well, hopefully we can now expand the Liberty St. fast food and gas station corridor up Elm a little bit.  Looks like they've already gotten rid of most of the rest of the buildings they own on that block.

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!

That's too bad that 1703 Elm St. is going to be demolished.  That's a nice Italianate, I dig the cornice.

^ Here's the building: 1703 Elm St, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Streetview

 

Well, hopefully we can now expand the Liberty St. fast food and gas station corridor up Elm a little bit.  Looks like they've already gotten rid of most of the rest of the buildings they own on that block.

 

1703 Elm has had the windows left open for at least a year now.  The same goes for the rest of the block that these losers own.  I specifically mentioned this block on 55KRC when I discussed historic preservation issues and the element of demolition by neglect.  They knew that they couldn't get a permit to demolish unless the buildings  were in complete disrepair, so they allowed them to fall into complete disrepair as quickly as possible.  This is a crime and should be prosecuted as such.

I have never met Gale Smith but i have heard the man described as an angel by someone who knows him and knows what an angel is. He funds the school on the block from what i have been told.  It is so sad to see something like this happen.  He is a very wealthy man and could have stabilized them or tried to sell them.

Another empty lot.  I hope someone appeals it.  The building is sewper rough.  But it has been bad for many years before he got it.  I believe he was ill advised.  I don't think it was his intention when he bought it to have to tear it down.  These blocks need people living on them so bad.  It's like a war zone down elm from liberty to the end.  For every 10 whores, drug dealers, or drug addicts you'll find maybe 1 normal person. I hope these days are numbered. 

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.

Yeah, I see a couple of spots of peeling paint, and we all know how dangerous peeling paint is to public safety, so better knock it down ASAP. Just looking at this house, probably 1/2 of the older housing in Cincinnati is in worse condition. Better to see $15,000 to $20,000 in taxpayer money spent to create a vacant lot here than to retain first responders laid off by the city's budget crisis, right? Business opportunities for demolition contractors must be more abundant in Cincinnati than in any other city in the country outside Detroit. Come to think of it, with enough agressive demolition activity, the two cities can resemble twins someday. Cincinnati has thousands of properties, many historic, on it's demo "hit list". Depending on your interpretation of what a truly dangerous structure is, maybe 50-75% of these properties should not be on the list.

The Big "destructo" Crane and other tools are hovering ever closer to the empty office wing at GE Aircraft by the I-75 ramps. Looks as if it might go down soon if someone was wanting to get some pic's before it goes.

 

-Leroy

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!

Great idea, now who has some sway and can get this done?!

 

Also, how did Building Cincinnati know which buildings were being demolished in his "Wrecking Cincinnati" pieces?

Lots has come down around UC lately.  Big house on Clifton last week, 4 nice houses on Riddle two months ago.  About five between Jefferson and Glendora and one on Euclid early last year.     

Also, how did Building Cincinnati know which buildings were being demolished in his "Wrecking Cincinnati" pieces?

 

The City of Cincinnati maintains a "nuisance" list: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps38187.pdf  currently with 91 pages involving thousands of properties. Although not all of these structures will be demolished, (nor are all historic) most eventually will be razed. As they come off the list, the decreased property values post-demolition have to be recorded and adjusted by the Hamilton County auditor's office.

 

As for the demo activity in the Corryville area near UC, most of that is development-driven, not necessarily because of blight. When a developer can buy several old houses, demolish them, and then build a nice apartment complex on the lots, (mainly for UC students and faculty) a healthy profit can be realized. Some cities where old neighborhood lots are at a premium have experienced nearly 100% turnover in the old being torn down for the new. 200 years ago, most of what is now the central business district in downtown Cincinnati was residential, now long since vanished. While this kind of change is inevitable as part of urban growth, wholesale demolitions in the manner of the 1950's "Urban Renewal" programs have not been proven to help cities much-a lot of older cities have a downtown business core surrounded by many acres of demolition "green spaces" if that is what you want to call acres of empty, weedy, trash-strewn lots where neighborhoods used to be. Some hard-hit older neighborhoods in Cincinnati are starting to take on this empty appearance and may not be redeveloped for decades, if ever. This is particularly sad because the abundance of great historic architecture is one of the things that makes Cincinnati stand out positively from other American cities which have already destroyed their built heritage. Cincinnati's incomparable historic architecture should be carefully nurtured as a valuable community asset instead of being targeted for eradication.

hell yes

Thank you John S.  Would anyone want to organize into a group (maybe a subset of CPA) and make our voices heard in the political community so as to end the demos in OTR or at least to save the facades?  I am not in Cincinnati but would be willing to network and donate for the cause.  This isn't the 50s or even the 70s.  There is no reason Cincinnati should make the same sad mistakes almost every other city in America has already made.

 

This must be stopped.  In the long term, there must be new growth and community development to keep the area alive but that does not necessitate the destruction of what makes the city unique.

Cincinnati deals with increase in run-down houses

Posted: Jan 25, 2010 8:15 AM Updated: Jan 25, 2010 8:15 AM

 

Cincinnati deals with increase in run-down houses

 

CINCINNATI (AP) - Cincinnati is dealing with a decade-high number of blighted houses it's seeking to demolish to remove eyesores and crime magnets.

 

The city Department of Community Development says the list of nuisance properties had grown to 212, the most in a decade. The department has added an extra hearing each month to deal with the properties.

 

The city demolished 179 houses last year, the most in at least 15 years and nearly triple the number five years ago. The nuisance properties attract crime, are unsafe for firefighters and drag down home values in neighborhoods.

 

Community Development Manager Edward Cunningham blames the problem properties on the foreclosure crisis.

 

 

The only problem is their solution.

Well, well, well. Guess what the city is getting ready to demolish now?

 

Used up until late 2009, the building was boarded up and it's AC units removed. It now has a demo permit, and demolition could start within days.

 

And there have been NO steps taken to protect this very old structure from demolition. Guess where this money is coming from?

 

The Feds. That grant to rehabilitate structures and stabilize neighborhoods in other cities is being used to flatten the very treasures we should be saving in Cincinnati.

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.

 

 

 

Well, well, well. Guess what the city is getting ready to demolish now?

 

Used up until late 2009, the building was boarded up and it's AC units removed. It now has a demo permit, and demolition could start within days.

 

And there have been NO steps taken to protect this very old structure from demolition. Guess where this money is coming from?

 

The Feds. That grant to rehabilitate structures and stabilize neighborhoods in other cities is being used to flatten the very treasures we should be saving in Cincinnati.

 

Where are you getting this information?  Also, is that a CPS property?

107-0010-0065-90, 870 Blair Avenue

 

Circa 1930

Municipality Owned

 

--

 

4/6/43 The United Jewish Social Agencies of Cinti

6/10/58 City of Cincinnati (The University School of Cincinnati)

Did that go for auction from CPS and not sell? How'd the City end up with ownership? Are you thinking what I'm thinking Sherman?

I'm going today after work. Call me.

There seems to be more to this story...I would keep digging if I were you.  In regards to the money from the Feds, the application that the Cincinnati-Hamilton County NSP2 Consortium put together stated that they would use no more than 10% of the funds they received for demolition purposes.

 

They did include demolitions within all seven neighborhoods throughout the county that will be seeing these funds come in, but due to their agreement they can not spend more than $2.4M or so on demolition activities...so it's not like this is some never-ending pot of demolition money pouring into the City from the Feds.

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?

When I called earlier to the city, that's what they told me. It's been a hectic day at work today (that and I had a broken phone till 2), so I plan on calling around tomorrow. The permit was issued between the 11th and 15th.

Cincinnati deals with increase in run-down houses

Posted: Jan 25, 2010 8:15 AM Updated: Jan 25, 2010 8:15 AM

 

Cincinnati deals with increase in run-down houses

 

CINCINNATI (AP) - Cincinnati is dealing with a decade-high number of blighted houses it's seeking to demolish to remove eyesores and crime magnets.

 

The city Department of Community Development says the list of nuisance properties had grown to 212, the most in a decade. The department has added an extra hearing each month to deal with the properties.

 

The city demolished 179 houses last year, the most in at least 15 years and nearly triple the number five years ago. The nuisance properties attract crime, are unsafe for firefighters and drag down home values in neighborhoods.

 

Community Development Manager Edward Cunningham blames the problem properties on the foreclosure crisis.

 

 

  This was in the Enquirer as part of the story about blight and nuisance abatement. It seemed like the "equal time" allowance was made to counterweight the pro-preservation article written about the OTR by the Enquirer's editor the week before. If the "nuisance" article were not so serious, some of the rosey statements and claims made about the benefits of eliminating blight would be laughable. Mention was made that demolition creates jobs. Well, true, it does take x amount of machinery and y number of workers to demolish a structure but most residential demolitions are completed the same day and even large commercials demos are down and cleaned up in weeks. And it is always a one-time event. I wonder what vacant lot maintenance costs are in Cincy? Is a weed strewn, trashy vacant lot that much better than a standing but faded structure? As for fire safety, any building on fire is dangerous no matter when it was built. Keep transients and vagrants out of vacant buildings by properly boarding them up costs far less than demolition. Just because they are vacant now does not mean they will be vacant in perpetuity. Many have been vacated because of the recession but demolition is a permanent solution to what is probably a temporary problem.

 

While it may be true that dilapidated old structures may lower adjacent property values, I'm not sure it has been proven that having an isolated standing home or two on a once continously built block now filled with demolition-created vacant lots increases property values either. North St. Louis is an example of aggressive "blight" eradication but it also has acres of demolition greenspaces and few redevelopers. As for crime magnets, ("eyesores and crime magnets" are loaded words) I would blame that on the people who flock to areas where rents are cheap and abandoned buildings provide illegal shelter, not the buildings themselves. Restore these old "eyesores" and suddenly the criminal elements move out to look for new digs.

 

Worst of all is that demolition somehow helps the taxpayers by bringing in new development. That was the rationale behind the massive 1950's urban renewal projects that erased entire neighborhoods in the name of progress. A vacant lot generates little if any taxes and it will take decades of collecting post-demolition taxes to recoup the city's costs of demolition. In most cases, owners of these "nuisance" properties (often owned by nearly anonymous LLC's) have already abandoned them since it would cost more to comply with repairs than is worth in rent money. Post demolition, the city usually gets no money from the owners, ever. Better to find a way to get these abandoned and vacant properties into the hands of someone who will use them, even if they go on to tear them down to build new.

 

The article also linked to a list of nuisance properties. I took down some of the addresses there and looked them up on the County auditor's site. Except for one problem... some of the addresses provided in the article were not found on the auditor's site. (examples: 940 and 967 Elberon; 570 Hale) A better list is the City's Building Inspection nuisance list:  http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/bldginsp/downloads/bldginsp_eps38187.pdf which contains the addresses and complaint numbers of all nuisance properties in the city. As you can see there are thousands of properties on that list. I also thought that article number of 179 demolitions was way low but then Cincinnati also allows property owners to do their own demolitions so the actual number per year is probably closer to 1,000 or more. All I can say for certain is that some hard-hit neighborhoods (Avondale and Evanston come to mind) are starting to take on a gap-toothed appearance from the high number of demos and it would be difficult to find any historic Cincinnati neighborhood where there is not some evidence of recent demolition activity. Demolition is a tool that can be used to revitalize neighborhoods but it has to be used intelligently and sparingly targeting the truly beyond repair and structurally dangerous. Peeling paint or a missing section of guttering does not mandate an immediate demolition. The city code enforcement officers write up problem properties but I find no photos available to show how severe these code difficiencies are, just journal entries: http://cagisperm.hamilton-co.org/cpop/permits/address.aspx Demolition is just the path of least resistance when it comes to dealing with the ills of poorer neighborhoods. It does nothing to help the human-social problems in these areas and in taking down the structures, forces the people who lived in them to look for more of the same, thus perpetuating the poverty cycle.

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

I understand that...my point is that the $24 million or so is not all going towards demolition as it has somewhat been made out to be.  In fact, no more than 10% of that money can go to demolition activities.  So while $2.4M is a lot of money, it's not as if the entirety of the money will be going towards that purpose.  It also should be noted that not all of this money is going to the City of Cincnnati.

 

I can go back a read through the grant application again and get specific details, but I'm guessing not even the full 10% maximum will be used for demolition activities.  What I also noticed within the application is that sites are demolished often times so that other money from the same grant can be used to rebuild the site.

 

With all this said, I'm not advocating for the City or County to be tearing down historic properties that could very well be preserved and restored, but I am saying there is much more to this than the alleged abuse by the City.  If $2.4M is too much for demolition, then that's a federal thing that needs to be revised I would assume.  If the sunshine laws aren't working out then that's state thing.  It's just a very complicated process that is in place now and based on my experience within local governments from around the country I would not assume that any of this is being done with malice.