Home is where the hole is
 Codes enforcement.It's the overwhelming concern of every neighborhood group I have spoken with. Even in my neighborhood we have the occasional problem house. The most recent example was a house that had sat vacant for many months. The owners had bought the property for their son who had to go stay in a nice state run facility because he was selling crack. The house began to deteriorate rapidly and because the owners didn't keep the furnace running, the pipes on the second floor froze and then burst. Nobody knew until the basement had filled with water and overflowed out the windows. Did the owners fix it back up? Nope! Did they want to sell? Nope! Some think it was retribution against the neighborhood for turning in their drug-dealing son. Eventually a realtor brought a buyer to them with an offer they couldn't refuse and I think they had finally gotten tired of all the codes complaints. Contrast that with the story a frequent commenter on this blog relates. Someone wants to buy a certain house. The owner says it's not for sale. There are some obvious maintenance issues with the property, but nothing major. The rejected buyer begins a campaign of codes complaints in an attempt to force the owner to sell. An absentee landlord has low-income tenants living in way-below standards for acceptable housing. The landlord gets Section 8 subsidies, but the tenants barely get a roof over their heads. We're talking blue tarps acting as actual roofing, boarded-up windows and porches that are in danger of people falling through them. Final scenario. A once grand 19th century Victorian mansion sits rotting away. The owners, nice enough people and considered to be a bit eccentric do nothing to maintain it. They do not have the financial means to maintain a 4500 square foot mansion but they like it and they're not interested in moving. There are broken windows with pigeons flying in and out. A leaky roof. Rotten brackets, spindles and other architectural details that have long ago passed the point of saving. The owners make the argument that it's their house and if they want to let it fall in on themselves it's their business. Where do we draw the line? Where is the balance between respecting people's individual rights versus the rights of the community? Was my neighborhood right in repeatedly filing complaints about a vacant house that was rapidly declining? Should someone who is clearly unable to maintain their home be forced to sell? If so, do we lump the person living in a ridiculously huge mansion into the same category as a senior citizen on fixed income barely scraping by in a 750 square foot ranch? These questions aren't easy. I don't want to put anyone out of their home. But I don't want to sit idly by and watch good housing rot away either. You may not consider it fair to force someone to repair their home but is it fair to the next door neighbor who can't sell their home for a fair price? What do you say Kansas City? Any of my faithful commentors care to chime in? Codes enforcement reform is something this next council will need to act on. I've never claimed to have all the answers. What are your opinions? |
posted by Mark at 7:51 AM
Comments on "Home is where the hole is"
-
Brent said ... (8:33 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:14 AM) :
-
hip critic said ... (9:34 AM) :
-
hip critic said ... (9:54 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (10:21 AM) :
-
hip critic said ... (1:50 PM) :
-
Mark said ... (3:00 PM) :
-
adrianne said ... (2:04 PM) :
post a commentI still say that you can cure 85% of the issue if you enforce codes on two different types of people:
1) Landlords -- it's one thing to live in a dilapidated house yourself, it's another to make someone else live in substandard housing (and receive federal money to do so). We have rental codes for safety reasons, we should enforce them
2) Absentee owners/vacant buildings - too many people hold onto property of all types to make the big payday when the neighborhood re-emerges. However, their eye-sore makes it less likely to re-emerge quickly. If we could enact some type of "absentee owners/vacant building act" -- or change the property tax structure to make it less profitable for them to sit on buildings, it'd be fine.
I'm with you in that I don't want to force an 80 year-old widow out of her home because she can't take care of it and on a fixed income, can't afford to pay someone to do it. But I think these people are a very small part of the much bigger problem
Brent,
I have toyed with the idea of "Redevelopment Zones" which identify neighborhoods on the comeback. I'm thinking some sort of inactivity fee could be levied against properties that are neither occupied, nor on the market.
Maybe even redirect the revenues from those fees back into the very communities they were obtained from in the form of infrastructure repair.
I don't know about the legality of that but I have plenty of legal friends who can offer advice in that arena.
Unfortunately, when doing things like clearing a whole block for a new Aldi's, it's a blanket party. Everyone gets the same treatment. No vaseline. I opine that there is no fair process when it comes to targeting certain houses for demolition. Most recently, I spoke on the phone to an owner of a property (from San Francisco) at Independence and Benton which was being demolished. He had no prior knowledge.
This particular building was in need of attention. Several people expressed interest in buying it to rehab. These are people who rehabbed properties considerably worse. The city, without any concrete evidence to show anyone (because they tape off the area and let nobody in)tore the building down. The Police were involved. The Fire Dept., etc. The Police said they chased a robbery suspect in there and after entrance deemed the building unsafe. Who the fuck gave the Police this authority? They never could produce a suspect. I believe the entire scenario was fabricated.
Additionally, the Hispanic church next door attempted to accomodate the community for parking. They bomb this area on Sunday mornings, wednesday nights, etc. The pastor at this church asked the city if they could buy the vacant lot. The arrogant codes guy said "The city has other plans for this block". In other words, the majority of the community (church included) would like this area for a parking lot for the church. Since it's located next to the church, thats not unreasonable.
Now the city has stolen this guys land and currently have no plans to assemble this property in a manner that reflects the wishes of the immediate community. I could see if the community wanted another titty bar there, but it's a parking lot. Thats just wrong.
To assemble a group of outside people (CDC's) to make policies and decisions for a community in terms of who stays and who goes is an unfair process and should be abandoned entirely. In other words, these crafty mofo's have no business being in business. It's not even appropriate if they get a couple of women or minorities to back it.
I could go on and on. Old Northeast Inc, etc, etc, etc. ONE has quite the scam going to benefit it's organization. They get their buddies at the neighborhood association to target a property, as if the immediate community would benefit from this acquisition. Codes enforcement bombards the place and gives them a "fix" list only the privileged could possibly fund in a 30-day period. When these individuals fail the deadline they are screwed. ONE eventually ends up with the property, which was the goal to begin with. They fix it up, put it on their website, and profit from it.
By the end of the process you have:
(1)displaced residents
(2)empty house until someone comes along. Tax exempt, of course!
(3)Pissed off people. Everyone except the few that personally benefit.
(4)Very few people who run around justifying this process.
Honestly, it pisses me off. And, it should you too.
Personally, I think the shitty city services Kansas City provides for its communities in terms of police protection, Parks and Rec, and a host of other undesirable city departments has a larger negative impact on property values than all the hanging screens, broken windows, etc. in this city combined. Unfortunately, you'd never get an appraiser to say this.
The residents of KC are crying out for help and City Hall refuses to listen. The winner in this next election will be the person who offers something different than the shitty organized circle jerk we presently have.
The city continues to ignore entire neighborhoods because they are poor, some of them behind on taxes, and other little bullshit reasons. You can fix all the exterior deficiencies in the world although if people don't feel safe and the area looks like shit (not just private residences either!)nobody would ever be stupid enough to purchase properties in these areas.
Northeast Kansas City has a gang of private investors willing to step forward although the city and Neighborhood Associations continue to try to bring in programs through CDC's and craft an "urban renewal plan" totally meant for situations where private investors ARE NOT present. Get it?
The area becomes blighted how? If you didn't say by the City ignoring it, you are wrong. East Patrol is finally starting to roll around here again. Previously, we would call and they would flat tell us they ain't coming. In spite of Parks and Rec driving in circles all day in our neighborhood our parks still look like shit. Crack dealers on every corner. Prostitutes. Panhandlers.
We have plenty of ordinances. Sound ordinances. Delivery hours for businesses bordering residential areas. Loitering laws. Prostitution laws. Panhandling laws. Vagrancy laws. All kinds of laws. What we have here is a police department that drives right by with their blinders on and thats why the quality of life is the way it is in my neighborhood. If its blight, I blame the city. Who else could you blame?
The solutions you offer Mark are no different than the ones being offered right now. They don't work. Sorry.
I'm not offering a solution. Just an idea. I understand Community Development Corporations have become a problem. It goes to my whole transparency issue with boards and commissions in general.
Hip, I love that you've taken an interest in my blog, but could you be a little more concise with your comments and a little less profane? I myself have been known to swear like a one-eyed carpenter but I try and refrain from doing it in public or in print!
Certainly Mark. I can be less profane. As for your ideas....they're more of the same. If you'd like me to be more concise, I will.
Ok...heres how it works. We'll use my area since it is such a fine example. We have a neighborhood association that represents, at moderate estimates, 25% of the actual population of this area (scarritt district). These folks meet each month and do things like ...plant flowers at the concourse, etc.
Real issues (i.e. street crime, robbery, thefts, etc etc etc) really never get addressed in this area. Unfortunately, these so few people try to speak on behalf of the entire population. The tragedy in all this is the City actually listens to them.
Then, when someone like myself comes along and brings real hard solid facts in their face, they discredit me by saying I'm a former this, etc etc etc. So, you know what I say to that. If you don't want to hear the truth about my neighborhood...ban me from your site (like KC Star did) or don't go into the business of using the blog community as a means to pursue an agenda we've already been there, and already done that. Good day sir.
Hip,
You've given me no reason to ban you from my site. I do want to hear the truth about neighborhoods. That's the beauty of this blog. Anybody can comment.
My ideas? It's just one. I like to kick things around and get peoples' opinions before blindly charging off thinking I know best. You have given an opinion that my idea of a Redevelopment Zone is no good. My feelings aren't hurt! I don't tie my emotions to ideas. Bang them around. Come up with something better. Tell me I'm wrong, but always make sure you tell my "why" I'm wrong. That's all I ask!
Keep in mind I'm no shrinking violet either. If I'm certain about an idea or opinion, I'll back it and give it to you straight. Popular or not. At least you'll know where I stand on something.
There's a great off-color quote from Lyndon Johnson about being inside and outside of a tent that I won't quote here, but I think it aptly describes me.
Does codes enforcement apply to parking lots or just commercial and residential structures? There are several parking areas downtown that are in terrible shape (cracked asphalt, sink holes, weeds and bushes growing rampant, etc.) or outright dangerous, with loose/crumbling stairs and retaining walls. Who do you contact to report this?