While I agree the timeline for fixing things is unrealistic for some people, I think it's a good idea. I think the lead paint thing is dumb, but I agree with everything else.
To the residents who complain, I say: fix your house!
http://www.freep.com/article/2012051...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
I think, in theory, it's a good idea, though in practice, it's probably an ill-advised money grab.
If homes in SW are worth, say, 10-15k, it sounds crazy for the city to ask for 8k in repairs in 30 days. Folks in SW don't have that kind of money, and even if they did, it would be foolish to spend it on something that won't generate a return.
Amazing how one-sided the article is, and the writer probably doesn't live in Detroit.
I firmly believe that if it wouldn't fly in the suburbs, it shouldn't fly in the city. This also goes back to the broken windows theory. Neglected areas lend themselves to crime. This is virtually all-around a good thing.
The one point I would maybe object to is that they are targeting Southwest Detroit. The homes in SW are among the oldest in the city and many are woodframe. The area has ALWAYS been working class.
However the middle class areas, such as the University Commons area and East English Village desperately need the code enforcement if they are to stay looking good. There people have the means - or should have the means if they want to live in a nice area of old brick [[or stone!) homes to maintain their homes properly.
Interesting that this reporter didn't talk to the East English Village Association, for example, who is actively working WITH the city to see that the most neglected properties are addressed.
And it isn't a money grab - first you get a warning ticket and if you fix the problem you owe nothing. If people maintained their homes the city stands to gain nothing monetarily from this.
I'm proud to say I got a ticket and promptly got it fixed. That was the end of it. It got my ass in gear to take care of something I had been putting off. Now the house and my block looks better. Isn't that ideal?
If the city didn't do this the same people would be complaining that the city does nothing to see that people keep their properties up to code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
Yeah, it hurts to think that an older retired couple who, in a healthy real estate market could capitalize on the sale of their home cannot do that in many areas of the city. It really is sad.
I don't think it could be stated any better that this. This is especially true, "I firmly believe that if it wouldn't fly in the suburbs, it shouldn't fly in the city." Funny that people's scream for accountability when it comes to kids, crime, etc and then become bleeding hearts when it comes to expecting people in the city to perform simple maintenance on their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
What about the burned out buildings on Michigan Ave [[Michigan And Martin)....anybody get a ticket there? Come around here 48228.....how about the abandoned and burned out buildings here...how about the ones that are being used as dumps.....three years later....and they are still here...what a joke
48228 is not in the fanciest areas. It is Warrendale and Franklin Park. We are not even on the adminstration's radar.
Having gotten one of these myself [[SW Detroit), I can agree with them in principle, but the timing stinks. Like a lot of people I really don't have any spare cash to sink into my house, which already has a $52,000 mortgage balance and value of probably somewhere around $10,000 now. Anything more than a few hundred dollars in repairs is simply out of my reach right now.
I have to say I am also confused by the wording of the letter; it made several mentions of my "rental property", which my property is most certainly not. The guy I bought the house from in 1999 used to rent it, but since then it'd been an owner-occupied home. I thought this sounded a little fishy, so I did some searching and found this page:
http://71.159.23.2/BSEOnline/divisio...n?pageId=10000
This paragraph in particular is interesting:
"The Property Maintenance Division conducts periodic inspections of existing residential rental properties and commercial structures in an effort to encourage superior property management, which leads to the elimination of blight and the stabilization of neighborhoods"
Note it says RENTAL residential properties. Further searching finds a related page:
http://71.159.23.2/BSEOnline/divisio...n?pageId=10011
Which says this:
"A Certificate of Compliance is required for basically every building and structure in the City of Detroit, with the exception of single-family owner- occupied homes."
So again, it suggests that there is no certification requirement if you're not renting. I am not sure if this applies to the repainting requirements [[that could very well fall under blight statutes) but I'm pretty sure this applies to their insistence that people get a lead paint inspection.
Given the fact that they have been so lax on these enforcements in the past [[meaning some people have got a LOT to fix at once), and the current economic problems, I think six months or even a year is a more realistic deadline. They should probably have also gotten together some information to send people on possible grants or other assistance available in helping them make repairs.
So I will be TRYING to hopefully do just enough repainting to satisfy their requirements. Fortunately my house doesn't really have any paint aside from window frames and the roof trim....I can do some myself but I can't really do ladder work anymore so I'm not going to be able to get to any high spots.
Just curious. For anyone who received a notice, did the letter indicate any resources that you can seek out to help with repairs such as contacting certain community organizations that might be able to help out? Or was it pretty much 'you're on your own to figure out a way to fix your house'?
What about the buildings downtown with the bricks falling off of them?
I agree meddle...didn't they just have the 7 most dangerous buildings listed on wwj? At least I think it was wwj...with the names of the owners...what is happening there?????? How come they're "special?" How come the police will come out and surround the building with yellow tape and no one is fined or made to make repairs? If someone has issues with peeling paint from my house falling - call the police and see if they surround my house with yellow tape in case someone gets hurt with falling paint chips!
Why do this now when real estate is at a low ebb, and why concentrate on the SW side, which is one of the few reasonably healthy working class residential areas in the city? Given the relative value of the houses involved right now vs. the cost of repairs, this program is almost certain to increase abandonment.
Now, I'm not saying that the city shouldn't look out for unsafe or highly unsightly conditions of homes, but putting together a "campaign" like this to go after even small violation is simply threatening to your city's main support - taxpaying homeowners. Almost all of whom are underwater on their houses for the foreseeable future, and many of whom are struggling economically as it is.
I agree with the poster above that this program would be much better applied in more well off areas with housing stocks and real estate values threatened with decline from deferred maintenance.
Even better would be to go after the owners of the city's thousands of ill-maintained, partially destroyed, and often dangerous, vacant and possibly abandoned buildings [[particularly the really large ones) to secure their structures. And, of course, doing something to stop the stealing of scrappable material from buildings all over the city, and resale to local scrap businesses. Those things would represent an actual improvement in the quality of life for the residents of the City of Detroit.
This is something like a broken windows fallacy. Go after anything that moves and try to extort some money. I live a couple of hundred miles from Detroit and ran into a old guy in town here who retired from a parts factory in Detroit and abandoned his house. Every month, he would get a threatening note about doing something with his property. He explained to me that the sales value of his home was less than the the cost of bringing it up to code to sell it. This is one of the reasons houses are abandoned. He sent the city of Detroit his key and wrote a letter to Detroit saying that he had given Detroit his home. He kept getting letters. It might sound caring, upstanding, and forward to have everyone bring their house up to code but it has to make economic sense to the owner. Also, some people can only afford a fixer-upper and will fix their home as they can afford it. Such legislation makes all this less possible and leads to abandonement; all with the best of intentions of course.
So he walked away from his house and his obligations. No one forced him to buy that house in the first place. He sounds like a real heel to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by oladub
A lot of us are underwater in our homes, yet aren't walking away just because it would be convenient to do so. Some of us are actually good for our mortgages, our debts, our promises, and our neighborhoods. It sickens me that if there isn't a buck to be made people like that will take off.
So now his neighbors have to deal with an abandoned and blighted structure. Sure glad I didn't live next to him.
I'm no real estate agent but I'm pretty sure you can't give away your home to a municipality by sending them a letter saying it's theirs. But whatever helps him sleep at night, I guess.
The city is targeting areas that are 'good', in attempt to stop them from turning 'bad'.
A large part of the reason property values are as low as they are is because of blight, so using low property values as an excuse to not repair blight seems illogical.Quote:
As part of the program, the city identified three test areas -- Bagley, Detroit Golf Club, Palmer Woods and the University District; Boston-Edison, the North End and Virginia Park, and southwest Detroit and Hubbard Farms --
Funaho, for what were you cited?
Or maybe he's broke, and can't afford to bring the property up-to-code?Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
This programs targets SW, and despite the praise this area gets from some, it's still the ghetto. It's very poor, though the poor happen to mostly be Mexican migrants and whites from Appalachia.
I don't think the typical SW homeowner can afford four-digit repairs on short notice, and it wouldn't in most cases, make economic sense.
IMO maybe start the program in the wealthier corners of the city, and then work down the socioeconmic ladder, rather than targeting the one neighborhood in Detroit where there are serious language and citizenship barriers.
The city is not targeting the one neighborwhood in Detroit where there are serious language and citizenship barriers. The city is targeting 3 areas made up of 9 neighborhoods, most of which are the weathier corners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bham1982
SW Detroit isn't a "good" neighborhood. Just because there's an actual, semi-functioning retail street doesn't make it a "good" neighborhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by jolla
NW Detroit is relatively "good", in many [[most?) parts. Start around Livernois/7 and then hit the hood.
And I don't think SW has low property values because of blight. It's because it was always an entry level working class neighborhood for newcomers, and once those newcomers build wealth, they have traditionally left.
1. Remove peeling paint and repaintQuote:
Originally Posted by jolla
2. Lead paint inspection
3. Certify my rental property
Like I said I think I can manage the painting, or at least the worst of it. There really isn't much paint TO peel. Ideally I could find someone to throw a couple hundred bucks at [[plus cost of paint) to do that for me, but i don't know anyone.
The lead paint inspection thing is, as I said, questionable. I really do think that the statutes for that only apply to rental properties. I suspect they may have slapped that requirement on anyone whose house was registered as a rental property in the past 15 or 20 years, in hopes that they'd catch some land lords who stopped bothering to have the annual inspections done. This is the only part that really bothers me; a quick search on google tells me that this would run me $450 - $600 if they insist on me having this done [[and that's assuming I don't need any remediation work done). That would basically eat up the small credit card I keep around for emergencies.
Just so I clearly understand people here:
If someone lives in a poorer neighborhood they shouldn't have the right to expect their neighbors to maintain their property or expect the city to enforce it if they choose not to maintain their property.
The hypocrisy and contradictions on this board are just fucking wonderful. Using the same vein why don't we just concede that DPD should only target the well to do neighborhoods and ignore the poorest since they shouldn't have any right or expectations of a safe neighborhood.
If people can't afford the fixes then there should be a process to appeal for more time.
If someone purchases an old home in Oakland County can they ignore basic maintenance and expect forgiveness from gov and neighbors because their house is underwater and they don't have the money? Nope. Sooooo...... if that is the case why would your expectations be different for people in poor neighbors.
Funny how people's empathy can be selectively used.
Funaho has a valid complaint asking to pay for a rental related inspection on a primary residence.
I just thought it strange that they blamed the late notification to the home owners on lack of staff, however, do they have enough manpower to inspect, issue violations, reinspect and then what? Lock the people up? Fine them? I believe this city should be run like other cities, some that hand out violations if the lawn isn't cut regularly, we need to have some standards, I just think this is not going to fly at this time. I'm with getting the blight removed from Michigan Ave. and other major avenues and taking steps to go after owners of the buildings downtown that are raining bricks on people. the City properties need to be removed, repaired first. Almost all the older frame houses in Detroit need some kind of repair and paint, but, to issue blanket violations and give out unreasonable deadlines just doesn't make sense.
The deadlines are unreasonable, I'll agree with that. The rest is the same silly argument as bitching about a parking ticket because the city still has crime. Simply put, if people aren't responsible for themselves [[whether they are criminals, parking scofflaws) or their property they should face consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by rutlev
On one hand people complain how the city looks, then when they try to do something people complain that it looks worse somewhere else in the city.
Let's praise students or ignore them when they have a 1.0 GPA since there are other kids with a 0.0 GPA. Because that is the same tired argument being made.
I assume that when he bought the house, it was in a civilized neighborhood. When he walked away, the neighborhood was crime-ridden. That wasn't his fault. I'm guessing, because of his age, that his former Detroit house was paid off. Detroit didn't want the house because it can't afford to fix up houses at a loss either. Nor was the City able to maintain a level of order which would have upheld realty prices to prevent such abandonments. The former owner and his wife moved to a small town where houses sold for $20,000 and there was virtually no crime. They seemed to live very modestly and, to my way of thinking, should have been in an independent living unit but probably couldn't afford that. Crime and the societal willingness to tolerate crime are at the heart of the problem. Abandoning homes is a logical response.Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
So that entitles him to walk away from any obligation. Of course you are making quite an assumption.Quote:
I assume that when he bought the house, it was in a civilized neighborhood. When he walked away, the neighborhood was crime-ridden. That wasn't his fault.
Assuming it was paid off but the city can't afford to fix it. If it was paid off your friend should have continued to maintain it. If he chose not to it is his fault.Quote:
I'm guessing, because of his age, that his former Detroit house was paid off. Detroit didn't want the house because it can't afford to fix up houses at a loss either.
Maybe if he and others maintained their homes [[since you imply he didn't maintain it this may not have happened.Quote:
Nor was the City able to maintain a level of order which would have upheld realty prices to prevent such abandonment.
So you are condemning the city for allowing crime but justifying your friend for being irresponsible with his obligations. Funny how responsibility is a convenience based upon whose side you are defending.Quote:
The former owner and his wife moved to a small town where houses sold for $20,000 and there was virtually no crime. They seemed to live very modestly and, to my way of thinking, should have been in an independent living unit but probably couldn't afford that. Crime and the societal willingness to tolerate crime are at the heart of the problem. Abandoning homes is a logical response.
Hopefully they kick the bucket soon so the company won't be obligated to them for their pension any longer which will free up money for younger workers to support their families. See how morality can change based upon what side of the argument you choose to take.
The city and residents were responsible for allowing the areas to deteriorate. Your friend was a resident during the decline so it is only logical that he is just as much a part of the problem that he chose to walk away from leaving his unmaintained home behind.
My logical response is to hope he is punished and fined for leaving others in his neighborhood to deal with the blight he caused