2 ms·

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. I

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.

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.