4 ms·

To put it into context, from what I've seen before - 1. The mentioned owner probably paid less then $500 per house. 2. There was no real improvement nor inves

To put it into context, from what I've seen before - 1. The mentioned owner probably paid less then $500 per house. 2. There was no real improvement nor investment made in/to those houses. 3. This was all about squeezing rent out of dilapidated properties, that were at the same time keeping everyone else house prices down.

cpwright 12y ago
He still paid the $500. If he was keeping current on his taxes, and the house was not an attractive nuisiance, there is no reason they should be demolished. If they were condemned, he should have been compensated for them. There is no reason he should have to make the house "nice", it should simply be habitable. It shouldn't leak, the walls should not be structurally unsound (in my town that is among other things defined as more than 30* out of plumb), there should be adequate egress, and in the winter months working heat. The only thing he seemed to have a problem with was working heat; but was going to have a professional come and fix it. The town then prevented him from fixing it before the hearing; pretty much ensuring that the tenant couldn't live there and he would lose. There should be a much higher burden of proof on the governments part, before someone is relieved of their property or its productive use.
- 67726e 12y ago
  You say the heat was the only problem, yet the article says inspectors revealed additional problems during further inspections. Could be leaky pipes, could be issues with the structural integrity. The article is hardly fair and balanced, and it does sound like something fishy is going on, but I have a hard time believing he had some 12 or so houses demolished without having something fishy going on himself.
- Perdition 12y ago
  They were demolished for building code violations according to the article. A process that took many months and many meetings with a tribunal. The question is whether you believe this guy was a victim of political corruption, where city officials targeted a competitor. Or believe the government side that he was a slumlord. Both seem equally likely given the evidence in the article.
  - cpwright 12y ago
    I guess I find that demolishing the house should take more than a few months or planning committee meetings. I think that an independent judge should have to be involved in anything that deprives someone of their property. I actually think a major component of the problem is property taxes that are too low. If there were minimum assessments on a lot, or alternatively a minimum assessment on a structure; then the landowners would be properly incentivized to put them to good use; or they would naturally revert to the town after several years of non-payment.
danielbhall001 12y ago
True, the owner should paid less than 500$ per house because, the investment no real improvement about the house.
dimva 12y ago
What about the tenants? Why are people so focused on increasing house prices? No one wants food prices to be high or internet prices to be high. In a small town that's shrinking rapidly, the people who live on the margins in maybe-condemned houses probably can't afford anything better. If you demolish houses that people are living in and raise housing costs, where are those people going to live? I can see the justification for demolishing abandoned houses, but demolishing houses that people are living in seems evil.
- LordKano 12y ago
  The goal is to push those people into government/subsidized housing. I an understand the desire, in theory. In theory, it's better to live in a government housing project that is kept up to minimal health and safety standards. In practice, it varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes, that's exactly what is needed. It is certainly better to live in a maintained government housing project than to live in a private crap hole with black mold, roaches and rodents but it's not better if the government housing project also has roaches, rodents, mold and crack dealers. It's difficult to convince people to spend money on such things unless you can first convince them that there is an emergency need to do so. Destroying the low cost housing while producing a glut of people who need low cost housing will create that emergency.

cpwright 12y ago

He still paid the $500. If he was keeping current on his taxes, and the house was not an attractive nuisiance, there is no reason they should be demolished. If they were condemned, he should have been compensated for them. There is no reason he should have to make the house "nice", it should simply be habitable. It shouldn't leak, the walls should not be structurally unsound (in my town that is among other things defined as more than 30* out of plumb), there should be adequate egress, and in the winter months working heat. The only thing he seemed to have a problem with was working heat; but was going to have a professional come and fix it. The town then prevented him from fixing it before the hearing; pretty much ensuring that the tenant couldn't live there and he would lose. There should be a much higher burden of proof on the governments part, before someone is relieved of their property or its productive use.

67726e 12y ago
You say the heat was the only problem, yet the article says inspectors revealed additional problems during further inspections. Could be leaky pipes, could be issues with the structural integrity. The article is hardly fair and balanced, and it does sound like something fishy is going on, but I have a hard time believing he had some 12 or so houses demolished without having something fishy going on himself.
Perdition 12y ago
They were demolished for building code violations according to the article. A process that took many months and many meetings with a tribunal. The question is whether you believe this guy was a victim of political corruption, where city officials targeted a competitor. Or believe the government side that he was a slumlord. Both seem equally likely given the evidence in the article.
- cpwright 12y ago
  I guess I find that demolishing the house should take more than a few months or planning committee meetings. I think that an independent judge should have to be involved in anything that deprives someone of their property. I actually think a major component of the problem is property taxes that are too low. If there were minimum assessments on a lot, or alternatively a minimum assessment on a structure; then the landowners would be properly incentivized to put them to good use; or they would naturally revert to the town after several years of non-payment.

danielbhall001 12y ago

True, the owner should paid less than 500$ per house because, the investment no real improvement about the house.

dimva 12y ago

What about the tenants? Why are people so focused on increasing house prices? No one wants food prices to be high or internet prices to be high. In a small town that's shrinking rapidly, the people who live on the margins in maybe-condemned houses probably can't afford anything better. If you demolish houses that people are living in and raise housing costs, where are those people going to live? I can see the justification for demolishing abandoned houses, but demolishing houses that people are living in seems evil.

LordKano 12y ago
The goal is to push those people into government/subsidized housing. I an understand the desire, in theory. In theory, it's better to live in a government housing project that is kept up to minimal health and safety standards. In practice, it varies on a case by case basis. Sometimes, that's exactly what is needed. It is certainly better to live in a maintained government housing project than to live in a private crap hole with black mold, roaches and rodents but it's not better if the government housing project also has roaches, rodents, mold and crack dealers. It's difficult to convince people to spend money on such things unless you can first convince them that there is an emergency need to do so. Destroying the low cost housing while producing a glut of people who need low cost housing will create that emergency.