Quote Originally Posted by CLAUDE G View Post
My thoughts exactly!

All they need to do is spend a few hundred thousand dollars on bull dozers and demolition equipment, and put together a small crew that all they do is demolitions.

The biggest cost is getting the dumpsters to haul away the debries, and then getting fill dirt to fill in basements.

If the city was really strapped for cash, why not just tear down the house and leave all the debries in what was once the basement? No dumpster, and you just need a small amount of fill dirt to cover up the hole?

Sure its not the best thing to do, but I would rather have a vacant lot with basement used as a landfill, than have a house that is a burned out shell.

They need to tear down the houses, they can always come back later and dig it out if necessary.
You can't leave the remains of a building in it's basement. This is just as dangerous as leaving the building standing. Old houses are enviromental disasters. They are filled with lead paint, Asbetos and Mercury contamination. If you leave the remains of the house there, you have a lot that can't be used without enviromental remediation. It's much easier to clean it up when you tear it down than to bury it and have to dig it all back up later.

The last thing I would want to do is create more government bueraucracy. It's going to be far cheaper to just contract out the work than creating a whole new city department. Tearing down houses should not be and never should become a Core city service.