No proposals have been received by the Planning Office for rehabilitation of two blighted buildings on Portland Street. The City was planning to demolish the two 2-family homes, but several local residents raised concerns about the city's plans. Catherine Johnson, an architect and town planner in private practice, and member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, called the destruction of the building, "a terrible decision, with terrible consequences."
In mid-December, the Economic Development Commission voted to offer a grant to anybody who would rehabilitate the buildings, with certain restrictions. The Department of Planning posted a request for proposals on December 15th, offering $65,000 in Community Development Block Grants, money which is only available for projects improving low-income neighborhoods and housing:
The city has approximately $65,000 in CDBG which could be made available to a project which can rehab the buildings into lead free and affordable housing.
The two homes are on a single lot, they last were sold for $135,000, in 2005. They have since been abandoned by their owner, who owes the city $37,000 for unpaid Water and Sewer bills and legal expenses. Bill Warner, Director of Planning for the City, told me that he has not yet received any proposals for the properties.
The deadline for receiving proposals is next Monday, January 10. The full text of the request for proposals is HERE.
9 comments:
I'm flabbergasted.
I thought surely Catherine Johnson would have immediately applied for the grant in order to save these precious buildings and avert the terrible consequences that will inevitably ensue if they should be torn down.
I guess she meant that Someone Else should step in to save the buildings.
I actually went there and looked at the buildings. My husband and I thought about doing this (he is a carpenter). We would have applied if it weren't for our one requirement...a driveway. There is no drive way on these houses nor is there space to put one. As a family that does ALL of their own maintenance on everything (including cars) that is important to us. Other than that the lot is not is horrible condition (needs picking up and pruning) and the front house is in reasonably good condition. The back house, which is smaller, appears to need more help. Really wish there was a driveway.
Any possibility the house at the front of the property could be moved to a nearby lot?
That would open the possibility for a driveway to the home in back and render both houses more attractive to prospective buyers.
And, why is the mortgage holder not held responsible for the overdue taxes and rehabilitation of the property? If the owner stopped payment on the mortgage, does not the bank (mortgagor)OWN the property?
Mr. Fixit:
The mortgagee (lender) does not own the property unless and until it acquires title at the conclusion of foreclosure proceedings. It is not required to take ownership, however.
There is no nearby lot and moving the house would basically be the entire grant fund. The only other possible options are to 1) negotiate with the business whose parking lot is adjacent to the property for parking spaces; 2) tear down the front house and expand the lot while creating parking spots (this option defeats the purpose of the grant because it calls for destruction); 3) live with it and park on the street; 4) negotiate with the owner next door to create a driveway. This would entail changing property lines and would also most likely mean tearing down the stairs to the upper-level of the front house. Parking would have to be created in the space between the two houses, in effect eliminating the lawn space.
What we have to remember is that we are not just talking about 2 cars (realistically for 1 house), but possibly 4 cars since there are 2 buildings.
Julie, the solution calling for demolition of one of the houses actually seems to be within the scope and spirit of the grant, which seeks proposals to "rehab 1 or both of the homes."
I'm not suggesting it's an economically viable solution. In fact, I suspect economics are the main reason no one has yet stepped forward on this project. While preservation and rehabilitation of existing housing is a noble goal and should always be given fair consideration, any such project must ultimately make economic sense to any private sector player who decides to take it on.
I looked at the inside of the rear house two years ago and it was (and still is) completly gutted down to the studs. It is not even built with standard studs 16' OC, it is rough sawn boards and does not even allow for someone rehabbing it to install insulation or electrical wiring without building a second wall. This house is basically a lead laden shell in disrepair. It is not economically feasable to rehab this property. Other than the drug dealers who use this property to stash their drugs, i cannot imagine any "local Citizens" ojection to the demolition. If Ms Johnson feels so strongly about saving these defunt stuctures, why doesn't she step up to the plate and put her $ where her mouth is?
I have also looked at these properties. No off street parking 4 units each unit about 400 sq.ft. total, lead paint, asbestos and stripped to the bone. Deal doesnt work and I do all my own work.
What Ms. Johnson doesnt get is the bottom line and how deals are done in the real world. Will anyone finanace it and what is the return on investment? who will rent there, what will they pay in rent with no parking and a 400 sq.ft. apartment?
It is 4 units and will require a commercial loan and I dont think a bank would touch it with the extent of lead paint and its a complicated project, way to complexe for some little family looking for a house.
My own efforts to interest a responsible person to take on this property have failed.
But I can't quite make the leap that others here have made that it is either Catherine Johnson's fault that we can't find a new owner, or that we never should have tried in the first place.
On the contrary, I think it's great that both Catherine and the Economic Development Committee encouraged an alternative to demolition.
The fact that it so far doesn't appear successful means that the math doesn't work yet - or we haven't found the right avenues to connect to people who would be interested and eligible.
I hope that the EDC will not consider this a failure, but as a test of a new model. A longer posting time or a sweeter deal in terms of grant funding or tax abatement might have made the difference. I hope we'll consider those options the next time a city-owned blighted property sits vacant.
Thank you to the EDC for trying something new!
And I trust that Catherine won't be discouraged from speaking up just because she can't afford to develop every property herself! If that were the standard, then only people with unlimited resources could participate in shaping policy in our town, and that's just un-American!
Post a Comment