Some neighborhood groups have become frustrated with the lack of progress in the demolition of blighted houses. Look for these groups to stage an action in the near future.
Is not Citibank the problem with the housing crisis in utter, Ohio.
Jay,
The city is running out of money for demolitions - otherwise they would have all been done already.
At last estimate, there were about 4,000 or so single family homes that are still waiting to be torn
down within the city of Youngstown.
At an average price of $6,000 per property to demo a single family home, that would come to
24 MILLION DOLLARS.
This does NOT include buildings and structures that fall into ANY other category besides single
family homes in the city.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: People in the city of Youngstown want and deserve
to have things like demolition of abandoned and obsolete buildings, better police protection,
better roads, an upgraded and modern sewer and water treatment system, etc, etc, etc
BUT - nobody wants to pay a DIME more in taxes than they already are to actually PAY for
any of this.
Perhaps it would be a better idea for would-be demonstrators to try and come up with ways
to RAISE MONEY FOR DEMOLITIONS to help the city, since nobody wants to pay more taxes
to do it.
The recent idea by city government to do some creative financing with the Sanitation fund
is a perfect example of how nobody wants to have to pay anything more than they already
do - EVEN IF it means addressing one of the city's most pressing needs - ie: DEMOLITIONS.
I would love to hear some suggestions on how the city can continue to demolish "blighted"
properties - in the absence of the funds that are necessary in order to do so.
We've had some great "grant writers" in recent years, perhaps some of the neighborhood
groups could seek out individuals who have the skills and the knowledge to write grant
applications and assist them in applying for more government grant money to apply to
the city's demolition fund(?)
Ideas.... anyone?
Allan,
I totally agree with you. We have to come up with some way to raise money because the City doesn't have it. I think what Jay was referring to is the people that participate in neighborhood groups, myself included, get very frustrated with these blighted neighborhoods, and the lack of concern. Maybe you have something in the Grant writing department. We have these incubators, Oak Hill, Yo Incubator, and YSU maybe they can write grants for specific neighborhood groups to get these homes taken down.
Anything and everything will help
I think Iwasthere is on the right track. :o
From what I learned recently, there are banks that won't sign off on the demolition of blighted houses.
Quote from: jay on December 09, 2015, 05:50:11 AM
I think Iwasthere is on the right track. :o
From what I learned recently, there are banks that won't sign off on the demolition of blighted houses.
The city passed an ordinance quite a while ago that forced R.E.O. property holders, ie: homes that are owned
by the banks due to foreclosure - to put up a 10,000 escrow with the city for each R.E.O. property, as a guarantee
that the properties would be properly taken care of while owned by the banks.
The city already has the right to take funds out of this escrow fund if the banks do not maintain these
properties. I would think the city would be checking into the legal mechanism(s) necessary to force
the banks to either bring the properties up to code, or raze them, and take the money from their
escrow accounts if they do not do one or the other.
It's been a long time since I read about it, but if memory serves me correctly the city had about
$980,000 in this fund - money the banks put up, which the city already has control of.
I just want to clarify that there are about 4,000 vacant homes in Youngstown. The number of blighted homes that should be demolished is far less. (though still too many)
I was on the north side today. I saw a the remains of a house that had recently burned down. I didn't pay much attention but IIRC it was a pile of charred wood maybe 6 ft tall, most of it seemed to have fallen into the basement. Probably much cheaper to clean up than to demolish the vacant house beside it that also caught fire but was put out after only charring one exterior wall, burning off the eaves and breaking any windows that weren't already broken on that side.
Why put it out? I'm believe the next lot was empty.
Burn Baby Burn!
Quote from: Why?Town on December 09, 2015, 10:48:02 PM
I was on the north side today. I saw a the remains of a house that had recently burned down. I didn't pay much attention but IIRC it was a pile of charred wood maybe 6 ft tall, most of it seemed to have fallen into the basement. Probably much cheaper to clean up than to demolish the vacant house beside it that also caught fire but was put out after only charring one exterior wall, burning off the eaves and breaking any windows that weren't already broken on that side.
Why put it out? I'm believe the next lot was empty.
Burn Baby Burn!
From what I've been told, it's actually MORE expensive to dispose of those remains, because they have to be treated as hazardous material.
If a house can be tested for asbestos, for example, the asbestos can be removed, and only the asbestos is treated as hazardous material. The remaining demolition debris can go to a typical landfill that accepts construction debris. But, when a house burns, they have to assume that all of the remaining material contains asbestos, because any asbestos that might be in the mix can't be removed. And, that hazardous material has to go to a different--and more expensive--landfill.
I don't know what happens to the neighboring house that was charred, assuming it was vacant, and no one wants to repair it.