The east side strip is Eastern Ave. heading up the Little Miami River Valley. That area was once a major Appalachian area. It is now being squeezed by Columbia-Tusculum, Hyde Park, and Mt. Lookout. Those areas are growing, but the housing left in the East End and Linwood is barely working class at the point. It was once a pretty industrialized area that is no longer.

I think I would change the VBML law that you must pay the fees and they increase every year, except that when you bring the building into compliance with VBML standards, then the fee is minimal.  The real problem is owners that do nothing..  They do not barricade, they do not repair the roof etc...  If someone wants to maintain a vacant building in anticipation of rehab, do not punish them or you will just get more and more demolitions. 

 

Getting a building to comply with the Vacant Building Maintenance License requirements is hard enough, and should be rewarded, not punished with an ever increasing fee.

Vacant-buildings issue full of concerns

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May and Dan Monk

 

The city of Cincinnati is facing questions from City Council and possibly a class-action lawsuit over its enforcement of vacant-building rules.  Councilmember Laketa Cole, chairwoman of the Neighborhoods and Public Services Committee, has asked the city administration to update her committee on the city’s Vacated Building Maintenance Licenses ordinance and address concerns of uneven enforcement detailed in the Business Courier’s Aug. 15 special report “Empty Promise.”

 

“I am disappointed that it’s not done equally and fairly across the board,” said Cole, who pushed to strengthen the ordinance with a 2006 amendment. “At the same time we’re trying to fight crime, we have to fight the vacant buildings, as well. And if we’re not doing it simultaneously, we’re fighting ourselves.”

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/08/25/story1.html

Cities’ plans offer models for solutions

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/08/25/story2.html

Proposal would seize properties from negligent owners, allow city to get them ready for use

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May

 

An Over-the-Rhine preservation group wants Cincinnati to fund a new program that would take deteriorating properties away from owners who don’t stabilize them and prepare the buildings for redevelopment.  Over-the-Rhine Foundation Executive Director Mike Morgan, who wrote the proposal, said a new receivership program would be a “powerful weapon” in the fight against blight because it would allow owners to reclaim their buildings if they reimburse the program for stabilization costs or would allow for the sale of the property to someone who will redevelop it.

 

Cincinnati City Councilman Jeff Berding, one of two council members to receive Morgan’s plan before Labor Day, praised the proposal, saying it could complement the work he and others are doing to bring a full-time housing court to Hamilton County. Such a court would rule on whether to place properties into receivership.  “The two sort of go hand in hand,” Berding said. “It’s a strong idea, and it merits serious consideration.”

Could be paired with licenses ordinance

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/09/08/story2.html

On the face of it, any program that tries to help save buildings here in OTR is great but I have some serious reservations about this. Property rights aside, I saw people, who I will not name by name, Johny Van Stein, be pushed by the city to improve his properties on Mulberry and Peete and instead of giving into the cities demands, tore them down himself (105 and 107 Mulberry). Larry Rhodes is another example and both of these people were and perhaps still are, some of the largest property owners north of Liberty who will tear the structures down just to spite the city and their efforts. The law of unintended consequences was written by people like Johny an Larry. Then what do we do about people, Larry is also one, who is wealthy enough to pay and pay, along with Brandon Blatt who just had a building colapse partly into the street? On the flip side, do we put pressure on people who are trying to fix buidlings like Steve Kreimer who has done beautiful jobs on Mulberry and buildings on North Main who can't afford to hold onto structures in his pipeline because of $2700 in VBML's (that promises to go up yearly) but allow Larry to just pay on dead buildings like 95 Mulberry? Pay me and you are ok, don't pay me and your building is mine? Sounds good when presented as "allow city to get them ready for use", but this is no different than a Kelo Vs. New London...your property is not really your property if I say I can do something more with it. This is nothing but a back door tax with the added bonus of property seizure all in the name of redevelopment.

 

There is a better way out there that doesn't send a chill up the spine of all of us who see this hit on property rights on top of already in place restrictions of Historic Boards that scares away one developer after another. In an effort to speed up redevelopment, we hinder it at the same time. For the most part, ( with a few crazy exceptions) people buy property in blighted areas like OTR because they have the sense that they can get in cheap, and let rising tides raise all ships, or add some other value to the properties through say accumulation and contiguity then sell for a profit. Does this mean your neighbors always will do exactly what you want, no, but why force them into another system that dictates what and when to do with their property? Let people invest in what they feel will be an appreciating asset and then develop it or sell it on their terms, that is why they bought it in the first place (lets just call that demand). Otherwise, we will continue down that path until you have no rights with your properties, only responsibilities (which translates nicely into risk in this situation). Not a good reason to invest in Real Estate anywhere let alone an already identifiably risky place such as the Mulberry/McMicken Sector of OTR or the Brewery Dist. As someone who lives there, I would ask Mike Morgan not to do me any favors by pushing this and would ask Berding to do more to protect my rights, and not focus on affecting my motivations when deciding to invest or divest of a property.

 

 

Landlord sent to jail for 60 days

City's orders to repair, clean up properties ignored

 

An Over-the-Rhine landlord was jailed Wednesday after refusing to clean up his property as ordered.  Chong Su, of the 1800 block of Race Street, was sent to the Hamilton County Justice Center for 60 days following a Wednesday hearing before Hamilton County Municipal Judge Brad Greenberg.

 

[glow=yellow,2,300]"Mr. Su, let me say that you strike me as the worst type of slumlord," the judge told him.[/glow]  Su was convicted in Housing Court of violating Cincinnati laws aimed at keeping his Race Street property clean, safe and free of crime. He also was convicted of the same thing involving a three-family Walnut Hills home in the 2300 block of Kemper Lane.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS0107/809110343/1055/NEWS

^ now that's my kind of judge! <a href="http://www.hamilton-co.org/MunicipalCourt/bios/JudgeGreenberg.htm">vote Greenberg!</a>

City seeks board to help resolve vacant-buildings cases

Panel would give owners quick route to appeal orders

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Dan Monk

 

The city of Cincinnati wants to create a new administrative panel to handle code violations on vacant buildings, giving property owners a new way to challenge fines and repair orders issued by building inspectors.  Under an ordinance submitted to Cincinnati City Council on Oct. 1, the seven-member Board of Housing Appeals would provide “an expeditious process” for appealing orders under the city’s Vacated Building Maintenance License.

 

“It’ll enable us to look at vacant buildings on more of a case-by-case basis, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach,” said Michael Cervay, the city’s director of community development, who expects the cost of operating the voluntary board will be minimal.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/10/20/story12.html

Blight motion will be considered in upcoming Cincinnati budget

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/11/blight-motion-will-be-considered-in.html

 

Cincinnati city manager Milton Dohoney Jr. thinks that a City Council motion aimed at stepping up the demolition of blighted buildings is unworkable, but should be kept in mind as the City prepares its 2009-2010 budget.

 

In October, Councilmember Chris Monzel proposed that City administration expend the maximum allowable amount of available resources to acquire and demolish blighted structures.

 

Sources of funding could include City capital funds, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, and Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funding.

 

Dohoney says that he sees two main concerns with Monzel's proposal - the addition of property acquisition to the hazard abatement process, and the impact that may have on the allocation of resources.

 

"Adding an acquisition component to the current Hazard Abatement program would result in a decrease in demolitions by approximately one-half to two-thirds," he says. "The cost of purchasing a building and land and then paying for the demolition and the maintenance and taxes on the land is far more expensive than the expense incurred by the current hazard abatement program."

 

Currently, the City's hazard abatement program puts a lien on property for the cost of demolition.

 

In 2008, the City appropriated $1,000,100 for the demolition, and they expect to appropriate even more in the 2009 budget cycle.

 

The average cost of a demolition is $14,000.

 

The "purchase and demolish" model has been used in Westwood.

 

One multi-family apartment building targeted for demolition had an owner contract price and City appraisal of $200,000.

 

With the costs of demolition and property maintenance, the figure approached $250,000, or five times what it would cost the City under the current hazard abatement program.

 

"A purchase and demolish program would also force the City into owning scattered vacant land and parcels and force the taxpayers into paying for the grass cutting, litter removal, and taxes on these sites for years to come," Dohoney says. "This type of policy without identifying a use or plan for the land could become problematic."

 

In addition to these concerns, Dohoney says that reallocating resources could damage other housing programs that they fund, such as People Working Cooperatively's Emergency Home Repair Program.

 

"The Administration believes that keeping citizens in their homes by assisting with fundamental home repair is a preferred alternative to allowing that home to become uninhabitable and leaving the City to bear the cost of loss of a housing unit and tax base as the building is eventually abandoned and demolished," he says.

 

Additionally, the City would be out of compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development if they fail to spend at least 25 percent of NSP funds to house people whose incomes are no greater than 50 percent of the area median income.

 

Some of the remaining housing funds will be used for blight removal, and some to rehabilitate foreclosed homes.

 

"The Administration strives to strike a balance between blight abatement through prevention and rehabilitation in both CDBG and NSP funded activities."

Firm snapping up vacant buildings called speculator

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May

 

A Utah investment company has purchased nearly 150 residential properties across urban Ohio with a goal of owning 1,000 by the end of next year.  JD4 Investments LLC owns 30 to 40 properties in Cincinnati and about the same number in Columbus, said John Sorensen, a partner with the company. The company, named for Sorensen, his wife and the other primary owners, also owns property in Dayton, Cleveland and Toledo. Sorensen estimates JD4 has 137 properties in Ohio and is in the process of buying another 200.

 

In Cincinnati, those purchases include: a three-family structure in Over-the-Rhine for $1,396, a condominium building in Walnut Hills for $11,691 and a single-family brick home in Bond Hill for $13,367.  All of the Ohio homes have been purchased through Fannie Mae after foreclosure, he said. JD4 also owns about 300 properties in Michigan and is buying another 260, along with about 100 in Indiana and some in Texas, he said. It has bought them through various banks and institutional owners.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/12/08/story2.html

"Now JD4 has hired someone to try to negotiate lower fines and back taxes in various cities and is hiring a general contractor to assess the condition of the buildings it owns. Sorensen said the company also is hiring an agent based in Ohio. And the company is working to establish an organization to retrain and educate people renting the recently acquired properties." 

 

Sounds like this firm (JD4) is buying first and then looking at what they bought later. Any older property with potential difficiencies should first be carefully assessed before purchasing. Private individuals with common sense usually hire a professional house inspector and obtain a condition report before signing a purchase contract. Why a firm with so many holdings would wait until they owned the property to evaluate what they are buying is beyond me-even if the property was sold "as is". Besides back taxes and unpaid fines, there could be other unknown issues such as asbestos and lead paint. (or even squatters?)  It seems like they have some issues to settle in the rental criteria department too if their tenants routinely urinate in stairwells. Why do they need someone to train renters-do they have no apartment managers or supervisors? Have they ever heard of credit and background checks as well as references?

 

Despite the impressive monetary amounts mentioned, the whole operation sounds amateurish and inexperienced. No mention is made of how they upgrade and rehabilitate these properties-do they rehab to minimum standards or invest enough to bring up neighboring property values? I know at least one individual who buys mainly foreclosures cheaply and then tries to relist the property in a couple of months at a considerably higher price-all without doing a single thing to the property. In today's market that puts a lot of these properties at a higher risk for vandalism and neglect as they sit for longer periods unsold and vacant. Foreclosed homes should not be re-sold to real estate speculators. When the real estate market started crashing, flippers and speculators were among the first to walk away from their bad investments.

 

OTR is one of the most complex urban areas in the nation in terms of demographics and socio-economic issues as well as historic preservation balanced with new development and adaptive re-use. I've read at least one master's thesis in-depth study of the area (but please do not ask me to link to it as it was a year or more ago and I did not bookmark it) and I suppose several more books could be written to explore all the issues impacting the OTR. The best solution right now for the OTR would be to stabilize as many buildings as possible and then try to insure they are sold or transferred to entities and individuals who will comply with a master plan for the neighborhood. (assuming there is one) Since it is a National Register historic district, all old building rehabilitations should conform to the Secretary of the Interior's guidlines for the rehabilitation of historic structures. There's simply too much at stake in the OTR to let get-rich-quick or property flipper types come in and ruin it. Cincinnati has only one OTR and there's only one OTR in the nation. (I can't think of any city with so many densely built historic buildings in a similar setting) Save it and it will be an important component in Cincinnati's revitalization. Screw it up and there will never be a second chance to make it right.

 

^  Yeah, what he said!!

 

there are several books detailing the complexities of OTR.

Council ordinance would create account for Westwood demolitions

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/12/council-ordinance-would-create-account.html

 

Cincinnati City Council is considering an ordinance that could result in the demolition of several Westwood buildings.

 

The ordinance would establish the "Westwood Building Acquisition and Demolition" capital improvement project account with $750,000 in surplus tax increment funds whose bonds were authorized in September 2007.

 

The funds would be used for building acquisition, tenant relocation, demolition and site grading to remove obsolete multi-family buildings along Harrison Avenue and Bracken Woods Lane.

 

Neighborhood groups believe that the newly-cleared land will spur reinvestment in the area.

 

The project would begin in January 2009.

"Neighborhood groups believe that the newly-cleared land will spur reinvestment in the area."

 

Sounds a bit like the old "Urban Renewal" programs re-dux. While the eradication of concentrated poverty found within the large tenament type housing built from the 1930's-1970's sometimes does spur new development, as it did in the West End, other, less-enlightened urban renewal projects carelessly obilterated entire historic neighborhoods that might have actually contributed to the livability of these areas if rehabilitation and restoration had been chosen over demolition. Larger cities across the nation are littered with large vacant abandoned areas that were earlier targets of urban renewal clear-cutting. In the end, all of the public money spent resulted in unfulfilled hopes of new development. Demolition should be used with surgical precision, not used as a shotgun approach to obliterate entire neighborhoods, as still sometimes happens. HUD Community "Development" block grants seem misappropriated when used for mass demolitions.

 

Demolition is the least "green" friendly construction activity as it adds a lot of material to local landfills, wastes all of the energy and material resources that were put into the original structure, and opens up prominent gaps in a previously cohesive streetscape. A newly vacant lot created by demolition becomes a financial liability for a municipality until new development arrives. Any potential new tax revenue disappears because most demolitions of neglected structures creates a difficient tax-lien situation with the property owner(s). Better that developers purchase the sub-standard structure first and then bear the demolition costs themselves rather than to use public funds to tear down and then optimistically wait for developers to come in. Demolition creates few employment opportunities and they end when the demolition is completed. Restoration and rehabilitation creates jobs and adds an incentive for more investment. Demolition alone is not a development tool, it is regressive, not progressive.

 

Hopefully, the Westwood-Harrison Avenue project will take an enlightened approach and will not eradicate potentially reusable historical structures. Much of what makes up Cincinnati's unique character and charm is embodied in it's historic architecture and unique urban streetscapes. The argument that the urban core population is declining is not valid when used to justify demolition. Construction in exurban and surburban areas continues unabated and is fundamentally unsound and unsustainable in the long term. Sorry to get on a soapbox, but I've personally witnessed poorly chosen urban renewal policy in cities across the country. Instead of enhancing cities or encouraging new development, it often has the opposite effect. In many cases, the money would have been better spent investing in rehabilitation and augmenting neighborhood investment. Demolition is dis-investment and is justifiable only when new development is already planned and in place. In the case of dangerous structures damaged by fire or long-term serious neglect that makes structural rehabilitation financially unfeasible, demolition can be justified, but far too often it is inappropriately applied without seeking other better alternatives.

 

Demolition is the least "green" friendly construction activity as it adds a lot of material to local landfills, wastes all of the energy and material resources that were put into the original structure, and opens up prominent gaps in a previously cohesive streetscape.

 

The most inherently "green" structure is one that already exists.  Your points are spot on about the similarity of thought to that of the urban renewal era.

Well said, John.  I would add that there's not much demand, especially now, for new construction in that corridor and that the abundance of vacant lots might actually act as a disincentive to investment.

Building Cincinnati: "Well said, John.  I would add that there's not much demand, especially now, for new construction in that corridor and that the abundance of vacant lots might actually act as a disincentive to investment. "

 

Thank you and Uncle Rando for the kind words. It's encouraging to learn others feel the same way. A good friend of mine recently bought a foreclosed home in a neglected area of Fairmount-Knox Street-off Harrison and is putting a lot of his money, time, and energy into bringing the 1870's townhouse back to it's historic appearance. I too have been looking at homes in the area because I've witnessed neighborhoods turning around when people care and come together to change things for the better.

 

To my pleasant surprise, Google Maps has recently added "Street views" for Cincinnati and it allows one to do a "virtual" drive through Cincinnati's neighborhoods. There's a lot of beautiful homes along and adjacent to Harrison going on into Westwood. It would be a shame to lose many of them to indifference and neglect. Given that many of these historic structures were hand-built by highly skilled craftsmen using only hand tools, to replicate them today in the same manner would be financially prohibitive. The saying "they don't build them like they used to" is a fact when applied to historic structures. The desireability and high value of old architectural salvage should prove that point. The demolition solution to solving urban problems is an out-dated, obsolete model in the 21st century. Despite a current temporary decline in demand, I personally think that within the next 50 years even old dumpsites will be mined for valuable recyclable materials. People in the future will shake their heads in disbelief when they learn that people of our time were so wasteful.

Meeting's focus is rise in vacant building fires

By Quan Truong, Cincinnati Enquirer, December 22, 2008

 

A recent rash of fires, along with an increase in fire calls - mainly to vacant buildings - has become such a concern that fire chiefs and fire marshals from Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana are coming together Tuesday.  In Cincinnati, fire investigators say they have seen an increase from last year in the number of vacant house fires. They say more foreclosed homes mean more empty buildings that become havens for illegal activity.

 

The vacant homes attract drug users, prostitutes and homeless people looking for a warm place to stay, said Cincinnati fire investigator Capt. Dan Rottmueller. The department has added a checkbox on reports to mark a building as vacant so officials can track the instances.

^Nice, I was just thinking this the other day

I know you guys don't fully agree with this method, but I feel they are on the right path.  This area has bottomed out.  Anything to make it more attractive would be a plus through my eyes.

 

 

Council approves Westwood demolition account

 

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/12/council-approves-westwood-demolition.html

City sues Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo

 

The city of Cincinnati is expanding its fight against bank-owned properties by suing Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to force repairs on four vacant buildings in Westwood, Camp Washington and Northside.  The Dec. 22 lawsuit is the city’s second legal assault on bank-owned vacant buildings. In August, the city joined a Price Hill neighborhood group’s lawsuit against Deutsche Bank and others, with a cross claim that alleged the bank owes more $112,000 in fees and files for failing to comply with the city’s building code.

 

A recent Business Courier analysis found the Tri-State has more than 7,800 bank-owned properties. Westwood ranked fifth in the region with 280 bank-owned properties. In two city neighborhoods, Evanston and Avondale, more than 5 percent of all properties identified in the 2000 census as being owner-occupied are now in the hands of various banks.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/12/22/daily45.html

City Sues Banks: "The city of Cincinnati is expanding its fight against bank-owned properties by suing Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo to force repairs on four vacant buildings in Westwood, Camp Washington and Northside."

 

This is an intelligent response to a increasingly common problem facing many American cities in today's foreclosure and abandonment crisis. Other cities have found that contracting and paying for repairs and then placing a lien against the property owners for the cost of repairs motivates the absentee owners to start maintaining them. If the owner continues to ignore code violations and not pay for the repairs lien, the city can then legally acquire the property and sell it to someone who will maintain it, thus recovering part or all of the money spent for repairs. Once again, this policy has to be applied carefully and on a case-by-case basis.

 

Sometimes this approach does not work when the owners alternately choose to demolish the homes rather than repair them but even then at least the city does not have to pay for the demolition costs with little future hope for recovery.  Code enforcement is a very effective tool when used properly, even in today's economic environment.

 

While I am encouraged by this aggresive means of cleaning up certain areas of the city, I still question selling the land for $1.  What kind of restrictions does that put on the land if perhaps developers want to build new infill in a couple years?

 

 

City Council Member Launching War on Blight

Cincinnati Councilman Declares "War on Blight"

 

A city council member says he's launching a war on blight on Cincinnati's 1700 rundown properties. This morning, council member Greg Harris outlined his plan in front of a blighted home on Hollenshade Avenue in Westwood.

 

Harris says the epidemic of vacant and rundown properties is attracting drug-dealers and crime to local neighbors and reducing property values. Harris's plan helps neighborhood groups access federal funds, to demolish blighted buildings. In those cases, the city then owns the property.

 

Read full article here:

http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/City-Council-Member-Launching-War-on-Blight/dte7wv4jukeZ40iKJO1LDA.cspx

What kind of repercussions would that have for OTR, where the vacancy rate is so high and blight is so prevalent? Would historic buildings be targets? How long would this space have to remain "greenspace" before someone could get a couple parcels together and turn it in to a parking lot?

There are lots of details left out of that article...some of which would put your minds at ease.  Once I find out if I'm at liberty to share, I'll do so.

Empty homes, promises

Real-estate collapse attracts shadowy speculators

 

Landlords, investors and speculators are buying hundreds of local houses at rock-bottom prices, often paying just 10 percent of the amount homeowners had mortgaged the same properties for a few years earlier.  These super-cheap properties, already battered by repeated cycles of speculation, subprime mortgages and foreclosure, represent the flotsam and jetsam of the housing collapse. And they present a growing problem for cities and suburbs trying to maintain high quality housing.

 

Many properties are uninhabitable, and their owners - often out-of-state, limited-liability companies - appear to be doing little to bring those properties up to code. In some cases, speculators are keeping the properties out of the hands of neighborhood development groups eager to buy and renovate them.

 

Even as home sales dropped to their lowest level in a decade last year, sales of houses costing less than $10,000 climbed to their highest level in decades, according to an Enquirer review of local property sales.  Four-figure home sales, which have tripled since 2004, are now at their highest levels since county auditors began tracking such data.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090223/NEWS01/902230346/1055/NEWS

Neighborhood Homes Inititative could begin in April

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/03/neighborhood-homes-inititative-could.html

 

On March 3, a presentation on the status of the Neighborhood Homes Initiative was given to Cincinnati City Council's Vibrant Neighborhoods Committee.

 

In February 2008, council passed a motion to create the program to put vacant and foreclosed homes back into the hands of homeowners, to be funded with $1.25 million in foreclosure funds appropriated in the 2008 City budget.

 

The motion named the Greater Cincinnati Redevelopment Partnership, Inc. (GCRP) to administer NHI, and, three months later, council contracted with the Homesteading and Urban Redevelopment Corporation (HURC) to create a business plan.

 

HURC hired Don Lenz, director of the GCRP, as a consultant to prepare the NHI plan, and throughout the rest of the year a steering committee composed of representatives from community development corporations, lenders, real estate professionals, consultants, and the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati convened to work out the details.

 

The business plan

The NHI business plan recommends that HURC -- not GCRP -- should initiate the program by April 2009, and should receive the remaining $1.05 million in NHI funding.

 

HURC would purchase 20 houses per year over a three year period, acting as a wholesaler that would work with community development corporations, urban redevelopment corporations, and private developers to ensure that the properties are demolished, rehabilitated, or put back on the market.

 

Purchases would be made in neighborhoods with significant vacancies and foreclosures, but with "a reasonable opportunity" for market restoration, such as Neighborhood Enhancement Program and Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) areas.

 

The plan says that the program's primary property purchase sources should include the surplus inventory of National Community Stabilization Trust, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, local and national banks, and Real Estate Owned (REO) properties.

 

Sources of additional subsidies could include NSP funds, Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program funds, the Ohio Housing Finance Agency, and various City programs.

 

Council has yet to formally approve a program administrator.

 

Targeted funds

A week ago, councilmembers Chris Monzel and Roxanne Qualls issued a motion that NHI funding should only be used to fund projects in non-NSP neighborhoods.

 

In a statement accompanying the motion, Monzel ranked those neighborhoods by the number of foreclosures by dwelling unit: South Cumminsville, North Fairmount, Spring Grove Village, Kennedy Heights, and Mount Auburn.

 

"Using the NHI funds in this manner will result in a far greater benefit to the city as a whole and to each neighborhood which has the capacity to begin dealing with their neighborhood's foreclosure problem," the statement says.

 

No vote has been taken on the motion.

Westwood residents take action

By Jane Prendergast and Gregory Korte • April 1, 2009

 

Westwood activists frustrated by a vacant house they said drew drugs and prostitution boarded it up themselves Wednesday – finishing just as a call from a police contact warned them they were trespassing and should leave.

 

Hours before, a city-paid contractor boarded up the house at 2186 Harrison Ave., having been ordered to do so after city officials learned of the activists’ plans and invitiations to the media. But Mary Kuhl and others from Westwood Concern said when they arrived, they found just a small board over a window in the door and two doors padlocked.

 

So they went ahead, using electric screwdrivers to attach the plywood they’d already measured and cut. They finished the doors and windows, painting some of them Elder purple, and cleaning up the yard just as Kuhl’s cell phone rang.

 

Read full article here:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090401/NEWS01/304010091

I don't know if this is the right thread for this...but I filmed in the old abandoned Crosley building in Camp Washington for a school project a couple weekends ago. I'm studying Urban Planning in DAAP and I'm in an elective studio called Cinema & The City..

 

Heres a link to the project, its about a minute and a half long. The assignment was to abstract the space, but you still get a feel for what the building is like.

^Wow, very cool.  How did you get some of those up high and down low shots?

Very Nice Appleaday!

I've had some fun times in that building.  My lair is going to replace the water tower in the corner, once I come into a few million dollars to buy the place.

Cincinnati development director recommends five neighborhoods for foreclosure initiative

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/05/cincinnati-development-director.html

 

Five Cincinnati neighborhoods should be targeted for the Neighborhood Homes Initiative, according to a memo to City council from Department of Community Development director Michael Cervay.

 

Created in 2008 as a way to put more vacant and foreclosed properties into the hands of homeowners, the City has been working to focus the $1.25 million budgeted for the program into neighborhoods not served by other foreclosure abatement programs, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).

 

Under the NHI, approximately 20 homes could be purchased by program administrator Homesteading and Urban Redevelopment Corporation (HURC), then sold to community development corporations, urban redevelopment corporations, and private developers for demolition, rehabilitation, or resale.

 

In April 2009, city manager Milton Dohoney Jr. had said that NSP neighborhoods should be considered for the program in order to create an "advantageous synergy" and immediate localized impact, and advised holding off on selecting the participating neighborhoods until a NSP funding plan could be put in place.

 

But in a survey of the ten neighborhoods needing the most foreclosure help, Cervay says that the five non-NSP neighborhoods of South Cumminsville, North Fairmount, Spring Grove Village, Kennedy Heights, and Mount Auburn were best suited for the program.

 

Additionally, the Community Development Corporations Association of Greater Cincinnati recently suggested administering a similar program in its home base of Camp Washington, Kennedy Heights, and Spring Grove Village.

 

They are currently working with NHI administrator HURC on the project scope and budget.

 

To Cervay, the neighborhoods selected for NHI should depend on their capacity to perform the work.

 

"The partners that the CDC Association has identified for its activities indicate capacity to implement the program in those three areas," he said.

 

Cervay also pointed out that South Cumminsville has strong ties to Working in Neighborhoods, and North Fairmount has a strong capacity to perform through its North Fairmount Community Center.

 

Mount Auburn, which had 44 foreclosures completed in 2008, might be left out of this NHI cycle.

 

"Mount Auburn has, to date, formed no such association with a CDC," Cervay said.

Bought on the cheap, many Cincinnati JD4 homes sit in decay

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May

 

When Utah-based JD4 Investments LLC bought dozens of Ohio properties from Fannie Mae late last year, a company owner said the plan was to fix them up and rent or sell the homes to provide more affordable housing in a state slammed by foreclosures.

 

But here in Cincinnati, six of the dozen properties owned by JD4 have been targeted by city inspectors because of their deteriorating condition. Two of them, in fact, have been condemned. And the city is seeking bidders to demolish one of the homes, with another one on the path to demolition.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/07/06/story9.html

Receivership 101 shows ways to get blighted properties into hands of responsible owners

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/07/receivership-101-shows-ways-to-get.html

 

Last week, more than two dozen community development professionals from throughout Cincinnati learned about how the nuisance abatement law can be used to get blighted properties "out of bad hands and into good hands" during Receivership 101, part of the City of Cincinnati's Home Grown Expert Roundtable Series.

 

Receivership is a legal remedy in which a judge can grant legal access to a property to a community developer – normally a non-profit – to remediate a nuisance property, who then returns the property to the owner for the cost of the repairs or have the court offer it for sale to a third party.

 

Paul Rudemiller, executive director of the Camp Washington Community Board, says that receivership can be the best way to force action by a negligent or absentee owner.

 

The board's first receivership action, taken in 1996 against an absentee owner on a building that had been vacant for three years, eventually resulted in the owner bringing the building up to code and renting it to a tenant.

 

"The City couldn't make it happen," Rudemiller says. "The reason is because the City couldn't locate the guy, and they couldn't get a warrant served."

 

Nuisance abatement and the threat of receivership is different, he says, because a judge had the power to take his property away from him.

 

"All of a sudden, he comes forth," Rudemiller says. "It works very well on people who think they can avoid building inspectors."

 

Winning by losing

But more often than not, owners lack the ability to make these improvements, and Rudemiller cautions that community developers wishing to utilize the receivership strategy must have the proper skills and resources because the work usually results in a net financial loss.

 

"There's a fundamental reason why many of these properties are in the shape they're in," he says. "Generally speaking, it doesn't make economic sense to fix them up – it costs more than the building's worth. Therefore, if you accept that you can't make money on renovating and fixing the property, it follows that you have to lose money. Who would want to do that?"

 

Rudemiller says that this is the true test of whether or not a community developer has those required skills and resources.

 

"If your main goal is to improve the neighborhood and you're willing to take a loss, then you're a good candidate for receivership," he says.

 

Fourteen cases in 15 years

The Camp Washington Community Board has filed 14 nuisance abatement lawsuits since 1994.

 

Generally, the board's work involves cutting the grass and trimming overgrown trees, removing rubbish, installing new roofs and windows, and painting exteriors.

 

The board can then go back to the judge for a finding that the property has been abated, leaving any interior rehabilitation up to a new owner.

 

However, receivership sometimes can require a much bigger commitment by a community developer.

 

2873 Colerain Avenue, a prominent building that had over $115,000 in liens, eventually was turned over to a third-party owner and architect.

 

The board settled the liens with the Internal Revenue Service and worked with the new owner on interior renovations, eventually sinking $65,000 into the project.

 

Some still duck responsibility

Receivership is not without its pitfalls.

 

In 2008, the Camp Washington Community Board tried to purchase 3073 Massachusetts Avenue, a flipped property that was foreclosed upon by Wells Fargo following the board's filing of a nuisance abatement lawsuit.

 

After submitting an offer and not hearing from the bank, a new nuisance abatement lawsuit was filed by the City of Cincinnati – only then was it discovered that the property had been sold to Blue Spruce Entities LLC of South Dakota several months prior.

 

The deed had never been recorded.

 

The board then pursued a lawsuit against Blue Spruce, but soon after the property was sold to Go Invest Wisely LLC of Utah.

 

The lawsuit was again amended, resulting in Go Invest Wisely deeding the property to Eco Dream Affordable Housing Inc. of California.

 

That deed was finally recorded on March 12, 2009, and the new owner has yet to respond to the lawsuit.

 

Rudemiller says that the next court hearing is on Thursday, and they hope to receive a default judgement, which could then lead to the property being declared a public nuisance.

 

"I suspect that we'll be appointed receiver," he says.

 

Then work can begin on yet another project.

 

"Our main mission is not to make money," Rudemiller says. "It's to improve housing in Camp Washington."

 

Patricia Garry, executive director of the Community Development Corporations Association of Greater Cincinnati, says that Receivership 101 attendees left with much the same outlook for their individual neighborhoods.

 

"Folks left feeling that receivership was a useful tool in revitalizing neighborhoods, easier to use than they thought, and that it is a process that takes time," she says. "That time is used by the court, the owner, the neighborhood and the potential receiver to work out the best way to return the house to a useful building in the community."

Dohoney: Most OTRF preservation recommendations 'probably unfeasible'

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2009/08/dohoney-most-otrf-preservation.html

 

While the City generally advocates some of the concepts offered by Over-the-Rhine Foundation (OTRF) executive director Mike Morgan, Cincinnati city manager Milton Dohoney Jr. says that most of the changes are "probably unfeasible given the current economic climate".

 

Dohoney's memo to Cincinnati city council is in response to a 29-page report submitted by Morgan and a group of concerned citizens last month, requesting over 30 changes to the Cincinnati Municipal Code (CMC) that they say would help spur economic development and preserve the City's historic building stock.

 

Dohoney says that City administration categorically opposes making any modifications to the CMC, due to the delays it would cause.

 

"Many of the amendments would necessitate a comprehensive, long-tem review process and could negatively impact emergency situations," he says. "In addition to requiring an extensive legal analysis by the Law Department, alterations would be subject to the review and approval of Council, the Historic Conservation Board and the City Planning Commission."

 

Dohoney does agree that many of the ideas have merit, but the money just isn't there.

 

"The institution of a receivership program and creation of more funding opportunities to assist owner-occupants with rehabilitation are both ideas that would require more City dollars than are available at this juncture," he says.

 

City administration also doesn't recommend diverting demolition money to repairs or reducing the scope of tax abatements, but Dohoney says that the City does have in place some of the systems recommended by the OTRF.

 

"For instance, there is a mechanism already in place that triggers interdepartmental coordinationin non-emergency cases involving a historic property," he says. "In addition, the City makes the best use of limited staffing resources by pursuing legal measures that will result in the maximum penalty for violating Building Codes."

 

Getting to owners sooner

The first suggestion was to refer significant code violations to administrative boards earlier in the process, which would allow building owners more of an opportunity to make needed repairs.

 

Changes would make the boards more outcome-oriented than reactionary, Morgan said.

 

Dohoney says that he doesn't want to see yet another layer of bureaucracy, but that changes could be made to the current system.

 

"Modification of the rules of the 'Public Nuisance Hearings' may be desirable to expand the Boards' ability to be able to make a decision to repair, in addition to rendering decisions to demolish, a nuisance property," he says.

Dohoney says that the change would be consistent with Ohio Revised Code Chapter 715.26, and that Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Division (PMCE) has used the statute to make repairs when demolition was deemed an inappropriate remedy.

 

"This Code currently empowers municipalities to abate nuisances and provides 'for the removal and repair of insecure, unsafe, or structurally defective buildings or other structures.'" he says.

 

He adds that City administration supports expanding the housing docket to a housing court.

 

"Threat of imprisonment is a far stronger motivation than the directive of a new administrative board," Dohoney says.

 

An effort being led by councilmember Jeff Berding and Hamilton County commissioner Greg Hartmann would establish, through the state level, a Housing or Environmental Division in the Hamilton County Municipal Court.

 

"Creation of a Housing or Environmental Court, once operating funds are identified, would enable civil actions including receivership, etc., as well as criminal property maintenance and environmental violations adversely impacting safety and quality of life to be brought under one Division with expertise and greater capacity in resolving interrelated, complex housing and environmental issues," Dohoney says.

 

Demolition funds for repair work

The diversion of some demolition funding to repair blighted buildings is not an option, Dohoney says, even though he says that the City generally supports alternatives to demolition of historic buildings.

 

He points out that the City only demolished two buildings in Over-the-Rhine in 2007, and only one in 2008.

 

"The cost to repair and stabilize buildings normally will far exceed the cost to demolish the same nuisance property," Dohoney says. "The need for demolition of hazardous buildings across the city is extreme. Significant diversion of demolition funding is not recommended if we are to maintain public safety."

 

Dohoney says that DCD recommends further research to determine how to leverage private funds or other resources.

 

"Contractual guarantees could be established by the Administration that, as a result of repairs, the nuisance or hazard would be abated," he says. "That would allow the Administration to recommend that the funds equal to the cost to raze the building be put toward the repairs."

 

Such an arrangement was made last year to save the Meiner Flats building at 1500 Vine Street, a building requiring nearly $200,000 to repair.

 

That building is now stabilized and preserved for future development.

 

VBML and other CMC changes

In his estimation, most of the suggestions offered by Morgan are already reflected in the current practices of PMCE and do not need to be written into the CMC.

 

"There is no objection to modifying the Vacated Building Maintenance License (VBML) provisions to encourage historic preservation," Dohoney says. "While DCD is in general agreement with the concepts related to repair over demolition of historically significant structures presented in the OTR presentation and report, additional legal review of the specific Municipal Code changes recommended will need to occur to determine whether the changes are necessary and appropriate."

 

A suggestion that demolition permit fees for historic buildings be raised to nearly 100 times the rate of $59 per 1,000 square feet for non-historic properties could be very contentious, Dohoney says.

 

"It is suggested that additional municipal legal and administrative review of the proposed regulations be completed prior to changing the CMC," he says.

 

Dohoney also says that PMCE works closely with the City's Historic Conservation Office to identify locally- or nationally-historic buildings subject to upcoming public nuisance hearings.

 

"This interdepartmental coordination allows the historic status of a building to be taken into account," he says.

 

Receivership

Morgan and his team also recommended a receivership program, allowing a court to appoint a non-profit to bring a blighted building up to code.

 

The building would then be offered back to the owner for the cost of the repairs, or the court could order the property sold to a third-party.

 

Dohoney says that City administration supports a strong receivership program, citing OTRF presentations showing that the ability of a receiver to enter one's property – and a court to take it – serves a strong motivator to owners who continually evade normal enforcement methods.

 

"Of all the recommendations, receivership has the greatest likelihood of advancing historic preservation of endangered buildings," he says. "However, receivership will also be the most expensive to implement."

 

Dohoney cautions that candidates for receivership sometimes can be impediments to comprehensive community development because of a tendency for partially-repaired vacant receivership buildings to return to nuisance status.

This can drag down property values and lower neighborhood morale, he says.

 

"Therefore, it is recommended that receiverships be undertaken as full renovations in strategic areas undergoing revitalization with the greatest likelihood of the market supporting re-occupancy," Dohoney says.

 

He suggests partnering a legal resource team with a non-profit community development corporation that has shown the capacity to complete full-building rehabilitations and to responsibly tenant its buildings.

 

Financing

The OTRF proposal suggested providing additional incentives for the redevelopment of historic, vacant buildings, providing for the grassroots, sweat-equity type of development that builds neighborhoods.

 

But Dohoney says that the City lacks money for such a program.

 

"In most OTR historic rehabilitation cases, it is often a subsidy to fill a gap in rehabilitation cost-to-value that is required to secure financing," he says. "Until funds are identified, other incentives to encourage development of vacant property need to be explored."

 

Historic preservation

Changes the Chapter 1435 of the CMC are necessary for clarity and consistency for both developers and preservationists, the OTRF report said.

 

Since the beginning of 2007, PMCE has cited 84 owners of over 280 Over-the-Rhine historic structures with orders to criminal court under Chapter 1101 of the CMC, a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by six months imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine.

 

Violation of Chapter 1435, a zoning code provision, is a third-degree misdemeanor punishable by 60 days imprisonment and/or a $500 fine, Dohoney says.

 

"The PMCE Division does not expend limited resources filing complaints for third degree misdemeanors when remedies under the building code carry penalties of first degree misdemeanor with higher fines and penalties," he says.

 

Dohoney says that the Chapter 1435 conservation guidelines for the City's 22 historic districts and 30 local landmarks were designed to protect and maintain the character of properties and collections of buildings in historic districts.

 

"In each instance, the guidelines were developed after multiple public meetings and were endorsed by the community and property owners," he says.

 

Any further historic conservation proposals would require "extensive research and planning efforts" to assess their scope, impact, and merit.

 

"The Law Department should review the changes to the Municipal Code and the historic enabling Ordinances outlined in the proposal," Dohoney says. "Also, any amendments of the 52 individual Ordinances adopted for the City’s designated historic resources must be addressed by the Historic Conservation Board, the City Planning Commission, and City Council under Section 1435-05 and Section 1439-09 and are subject to the procedures outlined in Chapter 1435 of the Municipal Code."

 

Tax abatements

The OTRF recommendations said that the City's tax abatement policy favors new construction over rehabilitation.

 

Morgan said that this is unfair because the maximum valuation for an abatement is the same for rehabilitation and new construction, but the valuation on a rehabilitation project starts with the existing value of the land and structure – new construction counts only the value of the land.

 

In his example, if a $60,000 building is rehabilitated and infill is built on a $10,000 vacant lot – and both produce end products worth $275,000 – the owners of the new construction infill would pay significantly less in property taxes.

 

Morgan also took issue with the 15-year tax abatement given to new construction, compared to 10-years for rehabilitation projects.

 

"The abatements are considered long-term investments to retain residents and encourage investment," Dohoney says. "The abatement period is actually 10 years for new construction and 10 years for rehabilitation. Fifteen-year abatements apply to LEED certified construction whether new or rehabilitation."

 

Dohoney says that limiting incentives for new construction and rehabilitation is not recommended, as only 628 building projects out of approximately 150,000 City structures applied for the tax abatements in 2008.

 

Commitment to historic preservation

Finally, Morgan suggested that the City needs to leverage its historic assets to promote economic development.

 

"The Administration is committed to enhancing and preserving the historic character and culture of the city," Dohoney says. "The assembly of historic buildings in Cincinnati is a resource that can only be found in older urban cities, and if lost can never be reclaimed."

 

This resource can be packaged and promoted to promote new citizens and tourism, he says.

 

"We will continue to look for ways to prioritize, preserve, enhance, spotlight and market this resource," Dohoney says.

Preservationists, officials try for Cincinnati demolition options

By Lucy May | Cincinnati Business Courier, October 16, 2009

 

The stately home at 2210 Ohio Ave. has deteriorating box gutters, a rotting porch and a detached garage that’s falling apart.  Cincinnati city staff have declared it a fire hazard and a public nuisance and want the historic building demolished. But critics say it is a prime example of the city’s overly aggressive approach to demolition.

 

“While some buildings clearly are a danger to the public, this designation is simply overused,” said Margo Warminski, preservation director for the Cincinnati Preservation Association. “They need a more surgical strike, not a hit on the head.”

 

Warminski contacted City Council member Roxanne Qualls about the Ohio Avenue property specifically, and Qualls and her staff were able to buy some time for the property while residents of Clifton Heights and the Clifton Heights Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. (CHCURC) try to find another buyer for it.

 

Read full article here:

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2009/10/19/story8.html

I

What address is your property?

d

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!)

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

 

You could not be more ignorant of 3CDC. You are not referring to Buddy Gray, who purchased buildings and let the homeless squat in them while the building deteriorated with no improvements what-so-ever? 3CDC purchases the building, stabilizes them, lights the exterior, then secures it until a full restoration can be attempted when the market forces bear it.

 

As for the other comments I snipped out, if Cincinnati is all bad and tough, and you've been unequally harassed, why have you not filed a complaint with the city?

^

3CDC does take care of the buildings they own, but they have not paid VBML fees like other property owners.

Correct, and for the same reason that RestorationConsultant does not pay his. It's completely unfair and unenforceable. But they don't let "properties fall apart."

Hey RestorationConsultant, that's a gorgeous front porch you've added, and I love how you've bumped the front window out.  It looks like you're doing one hell of a job there!

Correct, and for the same reason that RestorationConsultant does not pay his. It's completely unfair and unenforceable. But they don't let "properties fall apart."

 

I agree, that is over the top.  But it speaks to the problem with the program and it's general unfairness.  An individual property owner is hassled and forced to sit through hearings and go to court while institutional property owners have no enforcement brought upon them (ignoring whether it is valid or not).

I completely see RestorationConsultants side of this.  I hate to even bring this up, because I get angry about it all over again. However, for some reason, if you are an "unconnected" individual attempting to improve your neighborhood by restoring a house, and you make ANY noise at all about city policy, you will be targeted!!  It happened to me in 1990 while atempting to cut through city red-tape to rehab a beautiful place near OTR.  I was stunned at the lack of desire to help a citizen facilitate the renovation of a vacant structure. Disgusted, I ended up leaving for Northern KY. 

 

At the end of the day, Cincinnati lost out on nearly 20 years of my income and property taxes, as well as the renovation of 5 buildings.  I know some things have changed, but apparently there is still a LONG road ahead in convincing the city that they are squandering some amazing potential.

 

Oh just bribe these inspectors.

I believe where you are seeing some not pay for their VBML's is when they get a waiver of VBML. These are good for 2 years. The other thing I would recommend is going head to head with the Inspectors if you feel they are in the wrong. Call Ed Cunningham directly and demand a sit down and make them present their case in front of their boss while you present yours. You will be amazed on how unprepared they are to do this and even more amazed on how quickly they cower down especially when you bring in 5 or 6 neighbors to defend your case. I did this with my own house on an issue that could only be described as harassment and actually got the inspector relocated. Try it, its fun.