60 Minutes Piece on Cleveland Ohio Razing of Homes

**CLAUDE G** · December-23-11, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by sycloneman

I don't know how the city does it but does Detroit bid out the demolition work to companies? I am not all too familiar with construction and demolition but with all the work that needs to be done in the city would it be more cost effective to purchase the needed equipment to perform the demolitions and hire laid off and out of work construction workers and pay them a fair wage to perform the work for the city?

Thoughts? Ideas? Corrections?

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.

**ndavies** · December-23-11, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by CLAUDE G

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.

**Ann Perkins** · December-24-11, 10:34 AM

Here are some facts in response to the comments:

The City pays for demolition by the square foot, with asbestos abatement included it is about $5.00 per s.f. Water shut off is $550 and DTE charges $720 to shut off the gas. An average 1500 square foot bungalow costs about $8500 to demo.

The work is bid out to contractors and not performed in-house. Years ago, the City maintained its own equipment and crews but it was impractical for many reasons. Liability being one and another that the federal funds used for demolition are not fixed [[just depends on what's available) so it would be foolhardy to maintain employees and equipment when you don't know how much money you have to spend.

The current administration stepped up the demolitions because of stimulus money. For the past ten years, the City only spent about $3 mil annually on demolition, but the stimulus in 2009 provided almost $30 million.

Although it used to be common practice in Detroit, it is a violation of the state building code to leave the basement in the ground, as well as to dump the debris in the hole. The buildings often contain contaminated building materials, and leaving the stuff in creates an obstacle for future development. For example, the developers of the old Redford Meijer had or have to remove a significant number of basements from the site that were left there by demolitions long ago. This is expensive and a disincentive. Developers want clean sites.

The banks have abandoned thousands of what they consider "no value" homes and the saddest part is they often don't complete the foreclosure because it is not worth the cost. So they start foreclosure, get the owner out and then walk away and discharge the mortgage so they have no responsibility for the house. The poor owner who lost the house could actually go back and reclaim it but most people don't know this.

Although the City has the authority to abate the nuisance by tearing down the house without owning it, this act does not transfer title. The properties that have been abandoned [[by banks or whomever) will eventually come into public ownership when foreclosed for taxes by the county, and then may eventually pass to the City, which has the right of first refusal at auction time. I think last year the City took about 6000 foreclosed properties.

Right now the city owns at least 12-15000 vacant homes and 65,000 vacant lots. They should be offering the vacant lots next to occupied homes to those owners and they also should be taking advantage of the "Repair to Own" ordinance to unload all the vacant homes to anyone who is willing to take one. Only God knows why this is not happening....