I know that as a city resident, I for one, will not miss any of these houses. I'd rather see empty lots with potential for rebuilding than houses that are potential safety hazards and that are just awful eyesores.(Buffalo, NY, April 2, 2006) - - Two state lawmakers were in Buffalo to announce that the Queen City will get some help removing some of its many eyesores.
State Senator Marc Coppola and Assemblyman Sam Hoyt announced that five million dollars from the state budget will cover the cost of demolitions throughout the city.
Coppola and Hoyt say there are at least 750 properties set for demolition in the city, and by tearing them down, the city will cut the number of police and fire calls to abandoned homes in Buffalo.
Does anyone know what happens to a property if it was auctioned off and the purchaser doesn't complete the transaction? I know someone who decided to dump his house (unfortunately). Supposedly someone purchased it in the auction but I still see him listed as the owner. No one knows if the transaction was ever completed since the old owner is still listed. Does the property bounce to the city then? Does the city hold the original owner accountable?
I think the city needs to hold the owners accountable. If someone notices the loss of potential and income in your property, I don't think it's fair that they can just bail and have no action taken against him/her.
That's part of the reason why the city, particularly the East Side, is in the condition it's in. No one wants to live next to an abandoned building. It's a fire hazard, potential crack house, potential gang hangout, etc. Things like this tend to set off a chain reaction.
We need something that will scare the hell out of property owners who get it in their teeny tiny brains that dumping a property and running off scott free is the answer to all their problems.
When a tenant rents an apartment it's common practice that they have to turnover a "security deposit" which I suppose is used to fix any above and beyond the norm wear and tear to the dwelling.
Perhaps what is needed is for the city to require a "security deposit" from hitherto, future private building owners to be used in the event the abandoned building is deemed a public hazard which will be used to raze it.
Security deposits. Hmmmmm.
If the tenant is on welfare, Social Services gives you a piece of paper that says SocSev will pay if need be. I've never gone that route.
A personal story.
A tenant was injured on work and unable to pay. My missus checked with the state and, sure enough, she had a disablilty claim in process. Months went by. We called the state again. Still in process.
To motivate some activity, after over a year of non-payment, I started eviction proceedings. The tenant showed up and was only interested in getting out; not paying anything. I tussled in court with the Legal Aid puppy, but was so sick of the situation (cut your losses; was I really going to execute a judgement on someone with no income.) that I agreed to just let her get out.
When I showed out on moveout day, she was gone. So were the lead glass windows throughout the apartment. I concluded the costs of repair exceeded any income I could get. But I did the right thing. I tore the house down. $7k.
I have another going vacant (BTW-I put in new tile baths and kitchens when I buy a place) and have similarly concluded to tear it down. Cost is $13k!!!! Holy cats.
The place has that ubiquitous asbestos shingle siding. It's hazardous waste. It can only be removed by licensed firms, employing the most highly-trained illegal immigrants they can find. Oh yeah, the State takes $2k right off the top for allowing the hazardous waste to be removed.
So who's the bad actor in all this? Do you think most one or two property landlords could afford to pay $13k in demo costs? Perhaps abandonment is society's way of reconciling an irreconcilable situation.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
Okay, how about demo insurance. Like fire, but instead of rebuilding, it's used to raze if need be.Originally Posted by biker
Never heard of it.
Have you?
If the market is efficient and such coverage even exists, it'd be priced prohibitively high.
The big shock for me was that asbestos stuff. I had now idea that stuff would cause such a reaction.
If the general public becomes aware of this, all houses should drop by $13k (or the net present value of it). That basically means to zero on the East Side. And a sizable chunk of every such-sided house in "good" neighborhoods.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
The matches are funny, but serious also.
Think of the economics on the East Side.
Rez is probably already ready to sell me his whole stock of Sinclair computers. Anyone stupid enough to carry someone for twelve months and is in the process of tearing his second house down must be a real easy mark.
The house next to mine was torn down by the City after sitting vacant for four years. The house on the other side has been vacant for about five.
Who in their right mind would put any dough in the East Side (Chris I hope you're reading this.)
Oh yeah, someone put a new roof on the house two houses away. But noting else. It's been vacant for about three years. The City would save it and us a ton of demo costs by just torching all three.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
So ESP, back to your original post.
Still think it's going to help development on the East Side by imposing some new punitive costs on landlords?
Truth springs from argument among friends.
It gets struck down to the city. The purchaser loses his deposit. As far as holding the bidder accountable, there are many times when the bidder simply can't pay what they bid because they purchased several other properties that day.Does anyone know what happens to a property if it was auctioned off and the purchaser doesn't complete the transaction?
I agree with nocturnal's proposal. Jewish lightning is far more efficient that a state regulated hazardous waste crew. Can anyone say "unintended consequences"?
I would rather use "two for the price of one".
I would think the City would be even slower than its usual breakneck pace of work in taking title to these properties. I mean, so long as there's still someone's name legally attached to the property, they can continue the charade of assessing taxes.
I wonder how much of the City's annual levy is on abandoned properties that no one will ever pay.
I stopped paying taxes on the last place about a year ago. Will the City puhleeeze foreclose on me???
Truth springs from argument among friends.
NOw, now. No ethnic slurs here.
I had a real funny thought when I suggest the City burn them down. They couldn't with my house, as the asbestos (I'm guessing) would give off dangerous emissions.
What a laugh. Like the street entreneurs hanging out in front of the Arab deli aren't smoking something dangerous to their health.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
What does it cost the city to tear down a house? $10,000? Why not give a crackhead $50, access to all the copper and siding, and a zippo lighter?Like the street entreneurs hanging out in front of the Arab deli aren't smoking something dangerous to their health.
As usual, we pay far to much for services that could be rendered more effectively by the private sector.
Based on my cost for the wood-sided house of $7k, I estimate they pay $5,000. That'd work out to 1,000 houses being torn down by Coppola.
Mayor Tone used to make periodic announcements like this and then fall back asleep for another year. And not much happened.
If they are serious about pulling down 1,000, I think I just got pushed to the end of a long line.
Or the $13k just became $15k.
Truth springs from argument among friends.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote