iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | reply to aurgathor
Re: Code enforcement demolishes House next door said by aurgathor:The son was most certainly an idiot -- since for him it was 'free', he should've sold it for whatever he could've gotten for it since he appparently had no real intention to keep it. He could've just cut the price by 10% every month, and I'm fairly certain that he could've gotten all cash offers at 50% off.
As for the city, auctioning off would've been cheaper than demolishing it.
actually, the city may lose money that way, i remember a county demolishing hundreds, yes, hundreds of houses that were repossessed, and abandoned, because of the recession, and the county got money from the federal government that not only paid for demolition, but made the county a very nice profit too, although they lost millions in property taxes. there's money in foreclosures and demolition!!. |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | A little bit of googling shows that Tulsa's mayor has this as a pet project. They appear to have spent $500,000 for each of the last two years for a program that does nothing but demolish houses at a cost of around $5,000 per demo. |
|
quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
South FL
kudos:2 | reply to KrK
Wasteful and stupid, but not much different than people trashing perfectly good stuff and calling it "remodeling". |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | reply to KrK
We burn them down here...training for the FD. |
|
iknowPremium
join:2012-03-25 | reply to robbin
said by robbin:A little bit of googling shows that Tulsa's mayor has this as a pet project. They appear to have spent $500,000 for each of the last two years for a program that does nothing but demolish houses at a cost of around $5,000 per demo.
and it would be better if the homeowners were allowed to live in their houses even mortgage free, and maintain them properly!. |
|
|
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | This probably has nothing to do with mortgages but there are probably a lot of unpaid taxes involved. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to iknow
said by iknow:said by marigolds:said by iknow:actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.
By years ago, you mean 50 years ago? This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s. no way, not anywhere near that long ago!. you might have it confused with eminent domain laws, where the government pays you a fair price for your property, and then evicts you, and uses the property for public use, like a privately owned strip mall. OR, possibly unpaid tax liens, those are the 2 that have been around forever. what has happened here is something new, started maybe 10-15 years ago, an offshoot of the drug wars. seizures of anything for unpaid parking fines, high grass, junk etc. or other civil violations were unheard of back then, and not allowed. buildings just used to crumble to the ground, and that was it. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal
I was actually off by a couple of decades. Practice dates from the 1930s.
But it still reached its peak in the 1960s with the HUD Act and the New Communities Act.
The blight cases wound their way through state supreme courts in the early 1970s.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | The house which was destroyed can no way be classified as urban renewal. This was a nuisance situation where taxes weren't being paid, the yard wasn't being upkept, possible drug usage, and unoccupied. Really a shame to destroy a house which was in the apparent condition of the one pictured. |
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
 ·voip.ms
| reply to KrK
I would imagine it's a relief to have it gone. St. Louis tries to do these too, but just doesn't have enough money to keep up.
There really isn't much of value to scavenge in these buildings. Maybe the accessible pipes and wire. After the track hoe gets starts in, you don't want to be anywhere around.
A situation like this in no way, shape, or form resembles the issues with illegal imminent domain seizures.
This property was quite obviously a burden on the surrounding community - a public nuisance.
I highly doubt anyone would buy that property given the condition. At least with the house gone, the lot now has some value.
--
...because I care. |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | reply to KrK
I looked real closely at the pics and I can't see a sidewalk on either side. Where is it in the pics? |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:I highly doubt anyone would buy that property given the condition. At least with the house gone, the lot now has some value.
I'm curious what criteria you used to reach that conclusion. From the pics and description given, the house needed to have the interior stripped and redone. Obviously the shrubs needed to be trimmed. Gutting a house and doing new wiring, insulation, etc is obviously cheaper that starting from scratch. Lumber in the 60's was superior to what can be purchased today. |
|
John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:5 | reply to KrK
How Portland, OR is dealing with it:
»www.oregonlive.com/front-porch/i···osu.html |
|
 UHFAll static, all day, ForeverPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
·Callcentric
 ·DIRECTV
·surpasshosting
| reply to robbin
said by robbin:said by nunya:I highly doubt anyone would buy that property given the condition. At least with the house gone, the lot now has some value.
I'm curious what criteria you used to reach that conclusion. From the pics and description given, the house needed to have the interior stripped and redone. Obviously the shrubs needed to be trimmed. Gutting a house and doing new wiring, insulation, etc is obviously cheaper that starting from scratch. Lumber in the 60's was superior to what can be purchased today. Exactly. A house about a block from me suffered a major fire. The house was considered a total loss by the insurance company, but was still standing. A local contractor purchased it for "scrap value" of $21,500, about $2000 above the assessed land value alone. He gutted it, including a complete tear off the roof including rafters, and rebuilt it into a nice house. All the plumbing, electrical, and mechanicals were replaced. He also added another garage stall as the original house only had one stall. He sold it for $162,500. I doubt he had $140,000 invested in the improvements. |
|
nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 Reviews:
·Charter
·surpasshosting
·voip.ms
| reply to robbin
Years of experience. I look at it strictly from a "for profit" point of view. Any investment in that property would have been money in the toilet.
Sometimes, as would be the case with this house, it most certainly is cheaper to start over.
Materials are only part of the equation. Labor is just as important, if not more. Then, it has to have some sort of "completion" value; the house has to magically be worth more than the materials and labor when finished. Much of that depends on the location of the property.
I'll put it like this. Years ago, the city of St. Louis tried selling properties for $1. Tax liens were forgiven. You did have to abide by some rules: having the necessary finances to fix the house, start and complete work within a given time frame, bring the property up to current code with proper permits and inspections.
There were few takers. People, in general, are stupid. But not many were that stupid. There were few takers. The city ended up taking a lot of the houses back because these re-habbers got in over their heads.
--
...because I care. |
|
| reply to AVD
said by AVD:next time tell the contractor to spray water to contain the dust. Did they abate lead and asbestos first?
You must have missed this part: There is only about a 5% chance there was either in that home. |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | reply to nunya
I have been involved in the construction industry since about 1980 and involved in investment since the mid 90's. I just have to disagree. That looked like a nice house. People around here rehab houses like that all the time. Tulsa has a thriving economy. Current unemployment below 5% (as opposed to a little over 6% a year ago). From all indications the housing market has been strong compared to much of the country and is continuing it's positive growth. Housing has value in Tulsa. From the description given, that house had value and many good years and family memories left. |
|
nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8 Reviews:
·Charter
·surpasshosting
·voip.ms
| The market dictates value. If that home had any value, someone (like you or me) would have bought it and flipped it. That certainly wasn't just a "sugar coat" house.
I've turned a few turds into diamonds. From the description and looks of that place. The best you'd get from that turd would be coal.
--
...because I care. |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | From reading the entire thread it appears to me that a reasonable price was never set. Either there was no motivation to sell or perhaps the estate was never properly settled and no one had authority. The city appears to have a policy of tearing down as many as they can. Google it. I sincerely doubt that someone like you or me ever really had the option. |
|
| reply to KrK
said by KrK:Then there's the issue of having a public right of way in the middle of your yard. Bah.
Do a right-of-way 'swap' as a condition of purchase.
Get rid of the park access between the two properties and move it to the far side of the now vacant lot.
Then you should be able to do whatever is necessary to 'combine' the lots on title and for occupancy purposes. |
|
