Detroit violations notices call for homeowners to get up to code -- now

[nain rouge]

I think more stringent enforcement of maintenance codes is a step in the right direction. However, giving people only 30 days to get their homes up to code and then slapping them with a fine if they fail to do so is a bit heavy-handed considering the lack of enforcement previously and the difficult state Detroit is in. 6 months and possibly access to some sorts of helpful resources seems more fair.

I personally hope this is a bluff to force the hands of those with the ability to quickly get their homes up to code, and that extensions will be handed out to the homeowners that will need more time.

[poobert]

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.

You also don't need to have a house up to code to sell it. You can require the buyer to sign and Affidavit of Compliance to get the code shit fixed before they live there or have someone else live there. If the dude had the house paid off he could have sold it for any amount.

It's pretty clear you're completely ignorant of this guy's situation and just making wild assumptions to justify his abandoning his responsibilities. It's funny how there is so much talk about "personal responsibility" these days but it is selectively applied to those on government assistance. Apparently as long as you're not on food stamps you can do whatever the hell you want, fuck personal responsibility and who cares about society. I'll just write a letter and tell the city they own my house now!!!

[poobert]

Or maybe he's broke, and can't afford to bring the property up-to-code?

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.

I agree. As I said, target the solidly middle class [[now becoming largely working class but still) areas instead of the poor areas. The Southwest Detroit part baffles me as well.

Way off topic, but southwest gets the short end of the stick way too often. It doesn't help that the residents there could claim racial bias, which I think there probably is some. I doubt JoAnn Watson really gives a shit about the hillbillies and Hispanics of SW.

[EastsideAl]

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.

Talk about missing the point entirely...

[jt1]

Talk about missing the point entirely...

How so? If I am missing the point I would expect that you would make sure to clarify it for me.

[oladub]

So that entitles him to walk away from any obligation. Of course you are making quite an assumption.

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.

Maybe if he and others maintained their homes [[since you imply he didn't maintain it this may not have happened.

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.

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

Acquaintance would be more accurate than friend. We had a history of Detroit in common. He grew up in the small town he moved back to. I grew up in Detroit. I have no idea how he maintained his former Detroit house but I do have some idea of what happens to homes in Detroit that have been abandoned. Maybe you can explain from your lofty and moralistic high horse why he should have been expected to spend his old age in a savage environment or be forced to subsidize the people behind laws that make it reasonable to abandon one's home. If he could have sold the house, as is, for a few thousand dollars, Detroit could have had an inhabited house to tax instead of tear down. Now Detroit is sending its employees out to terrorize the home owners of SW Detroit; most of whom aren't rich. Both he and his wife have since passed away so your expressed Schadenfreude logic can still be vented on the homeowners in SW Detroit if you can catch up to them in a few months.

You could extend your logic to refugees everywhere with talk of responsibility, obligations, convenience and how they are otherwise bad people for getting out of Somalia, Cuba, 1937 Germany, E. Germany, Detroit, or wherever. Didn't those people all have an obligation to prop up insanity by staying put or subsidizing the regime? Being forced to pay more to sell a house than it is worth is subsidizing the status quo.

[jt1]

Acquaintance would be more accurate than friend. We had a history of Detroit in common. He grew up in the small town he moved back to. I grew up in Detroit. I have no idea how he maintained his former Detroit house but I do have some idea of what happens to homes in Detroit that have been abandoned. Maybe you can explain from your lofty and moralistic high horse why he should have been expected to spend his old age in a savage environment or be forced to subsidize the people behind laws that make it reasonable to abandon one's home. If he could have sold the house, as is, for a few thousand dollars, Detroit could have had an inhabited house to tax instead of tear down. Now Detroit is sending its employees out to terrorize the home owners of SW Detroit; most of whom aren't rich. Both he and his wife have since passed away so your expressed Schadenfreude logic can still be vented on the homeowners in SW Detroit if you can catch up to them in a few months.

You could extend your logic to refugees everywhere with talk of responsibility, obligations, convenience and how they are otherwise bad people for getting out of Somalia, Cuba, 1937 Germany, E. Germany, Detroit, or wherever. Didn't those people all have an obligation to prop up insanity by staying put or subsidizing the regime? Being forced to pay more to sell a house than it is worth is subsidizing the status quo.

So you are saying he couldn't sell his house for anything but state you have no idea how he maintained his home. Seems like you are missing a pretty important piece of the discussion but giving him the benefit of the doubt. If the house was in good condition I'm sure it could have been sold for a nominal amount. This leads me to believe that he [[a) did not maintain it which contributed to the blight/decline in the neighborhood or [[b) didn't care and felt it was someone else's responsibility to take care of HIS property after he walked away. Neither speak highly of the man.

Then you continue to cite the poor, harassed people in SW Detroit where the city is trying to stop people from the same actions as your friend. Funny how he wasn't at fault for walking away due to the condition of the neighborhood but the people in SW shouldn't be responsible for the condition of their neighborhood. If that's the case then there is no situation where someone is responsible for their actions or their property. I don't find it to be a moralistic high horse to expect people to maintain their property so people like your friend can't later walk away from homes and cite deterioration of the area as the reason.

I would also argue that your claims of 'terrorizing' homeowners is quite a stretch when the article cites a couple examples [[certainly not a large enough population to show the whole story)

You're beyond rational discussion if you are equating maintaining your property and obligations in Detroit to living in Somalia or 1937 Germany. Living under civil war or a dictator is different than living in a struggling/declining neighborhood in a free society. People are free to leave Detroit but if they decide to walk away from their obligations because it is easy well that makes them scumbags in my book.

[douglasm]

One of the problems I see is that the codes haven't been enforced in a [[long) while, thus creating the problem to begin with.

Out here, for the first time in about 30 years, the small town I'm a councilman in hired a code enforcement officer. We did this....with council's blessing....a couple of years ago and heard screams of protest from some residents who "liked" the status quo. That's fine and good, but the laws were on the books and needed to be enforced.

Our ordinance also has a 30 day requirement. I'll grant you there's a BIG difference between my town of 950 and the 700,000 or so living in Detroit, but we found that working with the homeowner went a long way towards solving compliance problems. As long as a timetable for repairs was set by the property owner and agreed to by the city, there was no problem. A couple of homes took almost a year to come into compliance, but that was fine. As long as steady progress towards compliance was made, we were happy. And the effect on other homeowners was amazing. Once we got residents to dejunk their yard [[for example), general litter went down also, and as people took better care of their properties, so did their neighbours.

I don't know how Detroit is set up in this matter, but I would sugguest that for every neighbourhood that is being inspected, the city assign one or two contact people specifically to that neighbourhood. That way the individual property owner has less chance of being caught up in the system.

As to those people who are whinning along the lines of "what about [[location or old building)", you gotta start somewhere. Where people live seems like a decent place to me.

[jt1]

One of the problems I see is that the codes haven't been enforced in a [[long) while, thus creating the problem to begin with.

Out here, for the first time in about 30 years, the small town I'm a councilman in hired a code enforcement officer. We did this....with council's blessing....a couple of years ago and heard screams of protest from some residents who "liked" the status quo. That's fine and good, but the laws were on the books and needed to be enforced.

Our ordinance also has a 30 day requirement. I'll grant you there's a BIG difference between my town of 950 and the 700,000 or so living in Detroit, but we found that working with the homeowner went a long way towards solving compliance problems. As long as a timetable for repairs was set by the property owner and agreed to by the city, there was no problem. A couple of homes took almost a year to come into compliance, but that was fine. As long as steady progress towards compliance was made, we were happy. And the effect on other homeowners was amazing. Once we got residents to dejunk their yard [[for example), general litter went down also, and as people took better care of their properties, so did their neighbours.

I don't know how Detroit is set up in this matter, but I would sugguest that for every neighbourhood that is being inspected, the city assign one or two contact people specifically to that neighbourhood. That way the individual property owner has less chance of being caught up in the system.

As to those people who are whinning along the lines of "what about [[location or old building)", you gotta start somewhere. Where people live seems like a decent place to me.

Agreed, the process needs to improve and offer a more reasonable period of time or a means to work with the city. I do like the intent of cracking down on those that don't maintain their homes.

[Det_ard]

This kind of policy will lead to both improved homes in some areas and abandoned homes in other areas. The folks with the ability and willingness to spend the money to fix their homes up will do so.

The folks who can't or think it's like throwing money down a hole will walk away. Eventually the city or county will take over the house on back taxes.

Detroit's becoming one of the most expensive cities for landlords. You have the mandatory eviction dumpster [[$300), the lead test [[$600), who knows how much if you have to remediate lead paint, the C of O, inspectors with their hands out, AC theft, copper plumbing theft, water bills that the tenants don't pay that become a lien on the property, and now the blight tickets.

Sure, they're probably deserved, but as rents go down in Detroit and costs go up, the value of rental housing trends toward zero. Combine that with the massive population shift to nearby suburbs and you can expect thousands more abandoned homes. In certain areas, the blight ticket may be the final straw that induced someone to give up.

So folks like Jt1 can rail against people doing the wrong thing, and I agree in principle to a certain point, but the net effect is to further hollow out the borderline areas.

[douglasm]

The incentive to working with the homeowner is cost. Litigation is expensive. We're building a new sewer plant and bringing sewer to the town for the first time. We have one homeowner with a non-compliant septic system that is impossible to decomission, and is very reluctant to make the necessary changes. Our city attorney has told us that litigation costs to force the required changes could cost us between $10 to $15k. Multiply that by the number of non compliant homes [[divided by half) in Detroit, and you've got a hefty legal bill.

[DetroitHabitater]

After working with B&SE for years, I can certify that the inspectors are 100% morons who don't understand the building code.

[downtownguy]

Detroit's becoming one of the most expensive cities for landlords. You have the mandatory eviction dumpster [[$300), the lead test [[$600), who knows how much if you have to remediate lead paint, the C of O, inspectors with their hands out, AC theft, copper plumbing theft, water bills that the tenants don't pay that become a lien on the property, and now the blight tickets.

Good post, Det_ard. I don't have a dog in this fight so I'm not familiar with all that has to be done to make a property compliant, but the $600 for a lead test is so high. How come? What do they have to do that justifies $600 to test for lead paint?

[oladub]

jt1: "So you are saying he couldn't sell his house for anything but state you have no idea how he maintained his home. Seems like you are missing a pretty important piece of the discussion but giving him the benefit of the doubt. If the house was in good condition I'm sure it could have been sold for a nominal amount. This leads me to believe that he [[a) did not maintain it which contributed to the blight/decline in the neighborhood or [[b) didn't care and felt it was someone else's responsibility to take care of HIS property after he walked away. Neither speak highly of the man."

I met the guy when he was close to 80 and never saw his house in Detroit. He maintained the the small town house he bought in WI ok for an old guy; no trash, cut his grass as necessary, no peeling paint or other blight but no improvements either. Maybe that's an indication of how he took care of his old house. I don't know. You can do the guessing for me. Better yet, buy a house or two in Detroit as investments and put your money where your mouth is.

Then you continue to cite the poor, harassed people in SW Detroit where the city is trying to stop people from the same actions as your friend. Funny how he wasn't at fault for walking away due to the condition of the neighborhood but the people in SW shouldn't be responsible for the condition of their neighborhood. If that's the case then there is no situation where someone is responsible for their actions or their property. I don't find it to be a moralistic high horse to expect people to maintain their property so people like your friend can't later walk away from homes and cite deterioration of the area as the reason.

No, you got that backwards. The City is not trying to stop people from walking away. It is instead creating conditions that cause owners to walk away. Maybe the guy couldn't afford to uphold your morality. Maybe the building inspectors, contractors, bureaucrats, etc, weren't his favorite charity.

I would also argue that your claims of 'terrorizing' homeowners is quite a stretch when the article cites a couple examples [[certainly not a large enough population to show the whole story)

You're beyond rational discussion if you are equating maintaining your property and obligations in Detroit to living in Somalia or 1937 Germany. Living under civil war or a dictator is different than living in a struggling/declining neighborhood in a free society. People are free to leave Detroit but if they decide to walk away from their obligations because it is easy well that makes them scumbags in my book.

Ok, they are scumbags in your book for not wanting to stay in a high crime zone or pay off the politicians who tolerate that situation. He moved to a town where people don't lock their doors or get assaulted by what I consider scumbags. Tell us more about the freedom of locking everything, boarded up empty stores, and getting beat up after dark. I really hope Detroit gets turned around and think the potential is there once the majority of its resident stop tolerating crime.

[Gistok]

I live in St. Clair Shores... and they are [[and have been) doing a similar scenario, but city wide. Back in Feb. I had a warning on my front door saying that there was a wood pile in my back yard and some rust on my front porch railing that they wanted me to fix. They wanted it done within a month, but I could contact the city if I wasn't going to get it done in time, which I did.

I told them that the wood pile was Edison's doing [[I had no clue they were trimming behind my garage). And I told them that the city trash folks weren't picking up yard waste until April, which they agreed to postpone any ticketing. I took care of both problems within a few months, and don't fault the city for getting on my case, and especially appreciated their flexibility.

There needs to be some latitude in fixing problems, although some high costs unfortunately just cannot be avoided.

[SWMAP]

The only people who have to get a lead test are landlords who are renting a property. Owners occupying their own homes do not. The citation form is not too clear on that point, but the people in BS & E were quite clear when I called.
I am not compliant on a gutter. I agree that I should fix it.
Other common citations in my neighborhood are: trim up trees overhanging your roof; fix your crumbling porch steps; paint your windows; repair broken windows; remove blue tarp & repair roof; remove fallen-in garage.
I thinknits great. If you can't afford that kind of thing you shouldn't be trying to own a home. If you are taking rent on a place, you should make it decent for the kids.

[Hamtragedy]

Lead tests are expensive because of the x-ray machine these guys walk around with. They take two samples from each room of the house. They also take a visual inspection. They are looking for peeling and chipping paint. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. Areas often cited are friction points on doorways. Old windows are one big giant friction point. Peeling paint on exteriors and garages are not immune from the lead inspection.

LEAD REMEDIATION IS COSTLY, and must be performed by an EPA certified lead renovator. Fines for not being certified are as high as $37,000 per day. Yes, that's three zeros. Anyone renovating a 2x3 [[6'sq, 2'sq for HUD) foot area inside or 20'sq area outside must take provisions as to not create additional lead dust. WINDOWS MUST ALL BE TREATED AS THOUGH THERE IS LEAD DUST, REGARDLESS OF SIZE.

The city of Detroit stands to lose from this. Landlords who have maintained their properties now have another 600 fee to deal with, plus any deficiencies that need to be corrected,none of which are cheap. Fines for non-compliance with city inspections double each time, from 150 to 300, then to 600, then to 1200......

The neighborhoods that have been receiving grant money to renovate houses worth salvaging are for the most part sitting on those funds. In fact, the grant money is now available city wide, because demand from those target neighborhoods receiving grant money was so sparse due to the extreme cost of lead remediation.

[downtownguy]

^^Thanks for explaining the lead thing to me, Hamtragedy.

When I was in my early 20s, and after living in 2 apartments, I drank the home ownership Koolaid and bought a vacant HUD house. One of the conditions was that I had to paint everything so as to cover up any potential lead paint. As I recall, no test was done other than the new paint was visible to the inspector when final inspection was done.

That was in 1976. What I don't get is, now -- 36 years later -- lead paint is so toxic that homeowners are being forced to correct these deficiencies with 30 days notice. Why all of a sudden the rush?

I understand the safety hazard that lead paint poses. But closing firehouses and laying off police officers is a safety hazard also. We live with risk everyday and all of us -- individuals and government -- have to find ways to mitigate risks while working with limited resources. Sometimes we accept more risk than we want because the money just isn't there.

SWMAP says:

The only people who have to get a lead test are landlords who are renting a property. Owners occupying their own homes do not.

Yet the Freep article cited by the OP quotes two owners that are being told to fix lead paint in their own residences. Even if it did apply only to rental properties, many landlords are not rich either. To sum it up by saying if they can rent out a home, they can afford to make expensive repairs, is ignorant.

I agree that safety issues and violations need to be corrected and the city should see that this is done. However, it should be done with sensitivity to the financial hardship that can occur if these improvements are enforced with little time to remediate them. As other posters have pointed out, the higher the hurdles to own and maintain homes in the city are, the more likely it is that people will just walk away and abandon their homes. Which one contributes more risk to its citizens: an occupied house with lead paint, or an abandoned, burned out shell? Which one contributes more to the city's tax base?

[SWMAP]

In some cases the inspectors deduced that a property was a rental because not owner occupied according to property records. But they do correct the record when provided standard proofs. Lead has become a big thing, I agree. But being a landlord does mean insuring that the property is safe.

[Danny]

Dave Bing on Detroit housing code violations.

" My law is simple. Either you fix your house with some of your income. Or face serious consequences with most of your income. Your choice."

[Funaho]

In some cases the inspectors deduced that a property was a rental because not owner occupied according to property records. But they do correct the record when provided standard proofs. Lead has become a big thing, I agree. But being a landlord does mean insuring that the property is safe.

Since I may be going through this, what sort of proof is required to prove I'm not renting? My house is registered as my primary residence with the city; I had to do the paperwork on this in 2005 when I took out a debt consolidation mortgage. Do I need to get an affadavit from my live-in girl friend that she isn't renting from me?

[SWMAP]

What did your ticket say specifically and who was the inspector?

[Funaho]

I haven't gotten a ticket yet, just one of the letters in April. Unfortunately I think it's on my desk at work so I can't get to it until Monday.

I don't remember the inspector's name but the letter said I had to "Remove peeling paint and repaint residence", something about "paying the inspection fees as invoiced and calling for reinspection", and "registering my rental property." It was a very confusing notice, especially since there was no invoice of any sort included, nor did I ever receive an invoice.

[Occurrence]

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.

Actually, he's pretty smart. If someone owes more on a house than it's worth, something is seriously wrong and they would be stupid NOT to walk away from it.

[Scottathew]

The city of Warren does something very similar. First you get warnings, and then you if you still don't fix it you have get fines you can contest in "Blight Court".

In Warren this is done on a rotation sweep. The inspectors do one square mile at a time. Ahead of the "blight sweep" communication goes out in the city TV channels and in water bills that it's going to happen.

The program has been effective in Warren.

In Warren there is also a blight hotline you can call to report violations. I've used it in the past to report a person who was trying to dump commercial waste at the curb. The garbage men refused to pick it up because it was not residential waste, and it sat on the curb for weeks. I called the blight hotline and it was gone within a week.

If it wasn't for aggressive code enforcement and aggressive police responses I feel Warren would be heading into a "broken windows theory" spiral.