^ thats funny Michael....congrats.    But the point is, should you even have to do that?  There are probably thousands of individual property owners across the city that just find it easier to not deal with the acerbic environment the city has created.  This is just one of the many factors that helps to create these mass abandonments we see in cincy.  The city needs to step up and create policy that encourages and aids individual property owners in the process of returning their properties to viable use.  At present, it is one which mostly leads ultimately to demolition.

But the point is, should you even have to do that

Absolutely not. It is a law of good intentions but poor execution. That being said, it is what it is for right now. Hopefully we can change it in the future but in the meantime, those of us with legitimate disagreements about our own properties should confront the building dept head on. Come prepared, document everything, and bring neighbors. The building dept is too small and too busy combating those who are in the wrong to have to deal with those of us who are in the right as well.

Oh, I've been talking with Ed Cunningham.

 

Personally I wonder if this "issue" would have come up had I not been blogging extensively about the city's demolition policy and what appears to me their failure to properly follow section 106 review as it applies to historic buildings. Maybe I should not have made that request to city planning to be notified when property was sent over from inspection to planning for historic review, under section 106 before they sent it on to the state?

 

I have actually READ the municipal code, guess what? There is no "Continuity Clause" in the ordinance, meaning that there is no language that says a VBML continued in force after the sale/transfer of a property.

 

It has always been my position that the original VBML was first ordered in 2005 by a "heavy handed' inspector who was basically dealing with an undereducated owner who inherited the house and was dealing with probate who had broken window and an open door, the inspector became fed up and slapped them with a VBML.

 

The fact is that the city never filed a lien when they failed to pay the VBML the following year, as required under the ordinance. Nor did they file it with the mortgage holder pre or post foreclosure or with Freddie Mac and HUD whom I bought the property from THREE YEARS LATER!

 

BECAUSE the city failed to file a lien (as required under the ordinance for unpaid VBML fees) it would not show up on a title search as part of title insurance. We could talk about state consumer protection law and Federal housing law for days, but my position is because the city failed to follow its own ordinance under municipal code, they basically abandoned enforcement of the VBML, not to mention the ordinance as written and adopted has no continuity clause.

 

I should not NEED to apply for a waiver since the city FAILED under the code to keep the VBML enforced and matter of real estate records, by filing the lien.

 

A general contractor has a reasonable periods in which to file a mechanics lien so it shows up on title search so does a municipality.

 

Deliver of free and clear merchantable title is just that. The city cannot operate in a vacuum.

 

 

Good luck with that.  I took them up on the merits of the individual orders in one case and am going through with a waiver of VBML on 12th Street, but I think what will happen is you will end up in front of a judge making your case and costing you some money. 

And people wonder why so many homes are demolished instead of restored, and this is one of the largest reasons! :(

Hey RestorationConsultant,  It looks like you're doing one hell of a job there!

That place looks great.

 

Thanks GFI.

 

What is amazing is the 'selective enforcement issue.

 

The house next door 3 inches away, I might add, has falling asbestos shingles, a 2 foot hole in the south wall, No gutters or downspots and 3 foot tall weeds. AND it's rented out for 650.00 a month.

 

The other house next door vacant since 2005 has holes in the roof, a collapsing rear porch, broken windows and I began turning it in when we bought our house. Nothing!

 

The house behind us has been vacant for 7 years. Has holes in the roof (visable from the street) a falling chimney, glass falling out of unglazed windows, loose box gutters and a front "deck/porch ' that you cant walk on because you would fall through it.

 

One of the houses across the street was first turned in as vacant/open in 2004, still vacant, roof falling off loose flashing, broken windows high weeds and grass.

 

NOT ONE of those properties has a VBML order.

 

Oh and the house down the street had a major fire 8 months ago and is still stamnding with the back door open and serious structural issues!

 

I am seriously thinking of inviting the media this weekend for a press confernence and tour of my neighborhood. Maybe city inspections can explain why I am surounded by property that 'should' be condemned and I, the only one actually doiung anything is under the gun.

 

Apparently my city inspector is wearing blinders!

RestorationConsultant, can you PM me your address? I'd be interested in documenting these properties, for better or for worse.

 

And yes, you should make others more aware of the issues that are ongoing. If this requires the media, then by all means it should be exploited for all that it is worth.

I am seriously thinking of inviting the media this weekend for a press confernence and tour of my neighborhood. Maybe city inspections can explain why I am surounded by property that 'should' be condemned and I, the only one actually doiung anything is under the gun.

 

Apparently my city inspector is wearing blinders!

 

Just out of curiosity, have you invited your city inspector to come by to view your property?  Is it possible that this is just another case of bureaucracy run amok, and that if an actual human were to see the work you've done this year, they could somehow make the whole thing just go away?  I only say this because I'm sure that they frequently hear false claims from property owners who are under the gun and might not realize how much work you've actually done.

Jimmy, I am President of the local neighborhood association and as such routinely correspond with our city inspector via email. We have has two contentious properties in the neighborhood that we have been working closely with the city and him, on for a year now.

 

He is in my neighborhood at least once or twice a week. In fact just this last month or so the city took down a house on my block. This inspector, his supervisors were ALL on my block. Its really is hard to miss my house.

 

There is not one email or phone call where he expressed any concern or issue about the house or progress we have made nor are there any notes in the city database to indicate a problem.

 

As I say this issue "surfaced" when I started asking hard questions on my Historic preservation blog regarding the use of Federal CDGB funding and the section 106 review as our neighborhood association is working to save a couple of properties the city has slated for demo that are obviously historic and should have been subject to review under 106 as relates to the use of federal funds (CDBG) for demolition of property more than 50 years old, and the city 2010 budget which allocate over 1.1 million in federal CDGB funds for demo funding.

 

 

Hmm.  Too bad.  I'd go with Michael and Sherman's advice then.  I'm glad I never ran into these sorts of problems while rehabbing my house.  That sounds like a real nightmare.

 

?

I just purchased an abandoned-vacant Building in OTR to rehab and live in.  On the auditor's site it says 1885 on one record and 1875 on the other.  I was wondering if anyone can provide me with a resource to find some history on the property.

Anyone?

 

I have heard that some people use Sandborn(sp?) Fire Insurance Maps to see what year their property first appeared on them.  So, in your case, look at the maps from 1870 on up to see when it changed to actaully having a structure on your parcel, or a change in the structures footprint to indicate that an earlier structure was added on to or demolished and then rebuilt.  I would start at the downtown library I guess. 

I also wonder if you could go to the Clerk of Courts/County Recorders Office on Court Street downtown and look in the actual city plat books for any similar activity.  I have only been there once, but I got what I needed as the people there were quite helpful.

I just purchased an abandoned-vacant Building in OTR to rehab and live in. On the auditor's site it says 1885 on one record and 1875 on the other. I was wondering if anyone can provide me with a resource to find some history on the property.

Anyone?

 

Property tax records often show a jump in values when a "dwelling house" (as it would have been callled back then) was constructed on a vacant site. Say, for example, the tax record for 1874 showed a value of $500 but in 1875 it jumped to $4,000, you can reasonably assume the house was built in 1875. Sometimes contractors also had mechanics liens entered for record for the value of their labor and materials-these liens will not only give you a timeframe but the name of the builder as well as how much the home cost originally to build. Usually, when a title search is done before purchasing a home, a specific early owner or document may be referenced-this is a good place to start from. Most of these old tax records are available on microfilm. (at central libraries, county offices, or historical organizations) Sometimes local historians can also date a particular subdivision from a certain date and while this will not give you an exact date for your home, it may provide a ball park figure. Census records may also provide a clue and occasionally, you may luck out by finding something in your home with a date on it. Patent dates on original hardware (usually stamped on hinges and locks on the back) can also be helpful for a ballpark date. All of these suggestions require a bit of "History Detective" work on your part but also unlocks a lot of forgotten history about your home and the people who have lived in it before you. Hope this is helpful and please feel free to follow up.

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

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but it keeps slipping my mind....

 

Does anybody know what's in store for this little cluster of buildings across the street from the Great American Ballpark? I happened across them while walking around downtown last June, and wondered what their status was. They look vacant, but seem to be in mostly decent condition. Please tell me they aren't slated for demolition... I'd hate to see these torn down to make way for another parking garage.

 

I don't know, but I hope they remain.  I remember before the Atrium buildings went up, that whole area had these classic 1800's cincy commercial structures that were razed for all of those 1980's office buildings.  It'd be nice to have these saved as a living reference for what downtown used to look like instead of just looking at photographs.  I actually believe that in their current context against the newer structures, they serve as a more demonstrative lesson of what our city was once like. The juxtaposition is priceless.

 

 

Maybe they find some tenants when The Banks gets up and running.  Might benefit from a streetcar too.  Never know!  They've always looked to be in ok condition.

Being close to the Banks, and having a similar scale to the new construction there, one could see them having some of the same uses.

 

The first two north of 3rd street are owned by "300 Main LTD" and the next three are actually owned by Convergys.  They're all designated as office land use, so take that for what you want.  I think having different owners is a good sign that they aren't going to be demo'd. 

I keep reading the VBML ordinance and it finally hit me. Did anyone else see this?

 

Everything related to VBML says the "Director of Building and Inspections" and he is the one with authority to enforce under the ordinance. To declare a Building unsafe, to order it vacant, literally everything in the code says "Director of Building and Inspections".

 

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the city restructure things a couple of years ago. and merged Building Inspections into the "Department of Community Development". The duties and responsibilites that used tp be carried out by the previously seperate department called "Building and Inspections" now goes  to the "Division of Property Maintenence Inspections" and the position of "Director of Building and Inspections" position was eliminated!

 

While the city people may know what responsibilities were allocated to the Director of Community Development and which are now done by the "Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Division Manager",but, THE FACTS ARE, that the Municipal code, including VBML ,as its written, allocates responsibilities under the law ONLY to the position of " Director of Building and Inspections" that no longer EXISTS!

 

So the authority to enforce the VBML, DOESN'T EXIST LEGALLY as the authority is given under the law to the Director NOT the Property Maintence Code Enforcement Divivion Manager. Under the law, code enforcement currently lacks legal standing to enforce VBML's because the Council never amended the ordinance to read "Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Division Manager" instead of Director.

 

Think city legal knows about this?

I doubt it nor do they know about the continuance clause needed for the VBML to be passed on to new owners of the property. 

The big problem is that the original purpose of the VBML which was to make sure that the "worst of the worst' properties that had been vacant for 5-10-15 years and have serious structural issues that could impact first responders would be brought up to a 'minimum standard" of safety, is NOT the purpose these days. If a property is in foreclosure and has a broken window it is slapped with a VBML because city inspections canty track down a current owner.

 

Rather than issue "repair orders" and have to follow up on a routine basis, it is much easier for them to slap a VBML on it and only conduct a yearly followup.

 

In fact our Neighborhood Group is preparing a report on the Negative effects of the VBML on Neighborhood Turnaround and reinvestment and we hope to present it to the council in late January early February.

 

We are collecting stories and data from two groups:

 

1.) People wo bought property and began restoration only to be "blindsided' by VBML's months later. Also people who walked away from projects because of the VBML

 

2.) People who were restoring in Cincinnati and now have moved accross the river to Newport or Covington. We are trying to get an idea of the investment dollars lost because of the VBML

 

If anyone knows anyone in those catagoies they can contact me. So far we are documenting consitent failure to enforce the ordinance as written and mis-application of the ordinance on properties that never should have been under VBML but repair orders instead.

 

We hope that given this data the council will issue a directive that the odinance be enforced properly OR that the ordinance needs modification so it is not a "dis incentive" to histoirc preservation and investment in Cincinnati.

 

YES we know this report will likely fall on deaf ears but given the financial crisis this city is in we hope that the council hit with a REAL DOLLAR impact reports will consider it.

I think Amit Ghosh is still Director of Buildings and Inspections, at least that is what it says on the Building Permit when it is issued with his facsimilie signature.

 

The VBML purpose was to stop people from sitting on vacant buildings for decades, especially some notorious non-profits that were seen as stockpiling them.  The ordinance was meant as a way to force them to either stabalize them or sell them (without outright making them demolish them).

 

Some people get around the VBML by selling to some out of state entity that is hard to prosecute.  Heck I knew a guy who sold a vacant building to a homeless person, just to get out from under the demolition fees.  Some of the owners of these vacant buildings are scum.  If you are working dillegently and getting the rehab done within a year the fees are waived.  If it takes longer, the fees didn't seem that overwhelming compared to what you need to spend on the rehab.  IMO this should be based on date of ownership, not on date of condemnation:

 

The fees are graduated, based on the number of years since it was first ordered vacated:

$900  for less than 1 yr

$ 1,800 for 1-2 yr

$ 2,700 for 2-5 yr

$ 3,500 for 5 yrs plus

 

I think the fees should be waived if the building really is stabilized and kept secure, ie: you meet the 13 criteria set forth in the ordinance.  The high fees/fines should be reserved for those owners who do not secure the buildings and do not keep water out of them.

I believe that those 3rd & Main buildings are controlled by whoever owns Atrium I and there were rumblings that the building might be expanded into the south part of the block.  Many new office buildings in New York have been built behind the preserved facades of buildings just like these. 

I agree with that. The problem seems to be that inspectors are ordering buildings vacant ( kind of silly since the building typically already is vacant) for minor things like broken windows or copper theft. These are typically forclosed properties that may have only been vacant a few months, not years. These are the kind of things that can easily be addressed by repair orders. BUT throwing a VBML against it makes it 'unmarketable'.

 

Let's face it, most "old house people' get the basics done and "camp out" while they do the "pretty stuff". There is also an important consideration to be "on site' and not have to carry tools back and forth.

 

For those people the VBML is like a big RED FLAG and going across the river seems more attractive.

 

I know one person in the process of buying a house (not in bad shape at all) who is considering not going through because a VBML was thrown against it while it was in foreclosure. Should they be punished because HUD let a window get broken out and some scum stole the copper? Seems like it is in the city's interest to reward those people willing to come in and restore not throw red tape in their way.

 

The problem is you can't get the city to recind an order, OR admit they made a mistake in the first place by not issuing a repair order and DO YOU , then take the risk to go ahead and buy without knowing what you are up against?

 

We need a serious re-evaluation of the program and see if its' original intent is being served as it was created to do?

Those would make amazing lofts for people who work downtown.  Not sure what you'd do about parking, though.

I believe that those 3rd & Main buildings are controlled by whoever owns Atrium I and there were rumblings that the building might be expanded into the south part of the block. Many new office buildings in New York have been built behind the preserved facades of buildings just like these.

 

300 and 304 Main (the first two buildings) are owned by North American Properties.  The other ones are, from what I can tell, owned by the Convergys Corporation, who also seems to own the Atrium buildings.

They're beautiful. Please God no one tear these down.

 

While I am all for historical preservation, those buildings would be better off somewhere else.  Avec le temps.

They're beautiful. Please God no one tear these down.

 

While I am all for historical preservation, those buildings would be better off somewhere else. Avec le temps.

 

I'd rather move the 1980's modern ones out.

>Not sure what you'd do about parking, though.

 

There are thousands of parking spaces under construction as part of the Banks project, and both Atrium buildings have underground garages. QCS is building thousands of parking spaces.  So we're talking 3,000+ parking spaces within a one block radius of these buildings.  Surely 10 or so could be secured for residents.   

Obviously, but possibility and reality are often different things.  I'd love to see that happen, though.

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

 

There are workarounds, I just don't know if Cincinnati code is that "adaptable" yet?

yeah

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, but it keeps slipping my mind....

 

Does anybody know what's in store for this little cluster of buildings across the street from the Great American Ballpark? I happened across them while walking around downtown last June, and wondered what their status was. They look vacant, but seem to be in mostly decent condition. Please tell me they aren't slated for demolition... I'd hate to see these torn down to make way for another parking garage.

 

 

Those buildings fall into the Third-Main Street Historic District

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cdap/pages/-3730-/

They have sat "as is" for a long time.  The owners (appears to be two different sets for all buildings) have never shown any interest in redevelopment.  You'd think they would with all the progress made in the last 10 years.

They are active structures.