[ back ]
Ways sought to deal with abandoned property
(by Sue Reid - October 29, 2009)
Ways sought to deal with abandoned property
By SUE REID
Solon's chief building official and law director weighed in on a receivership program to address abandoned properties in the city last week during a meeting of City Council's finance committee. Demolition compared to repair was debated.
Following discussion on the program, which is an Ohio Revised Code-sanctioned process, the committee approved a motion to have the city's planning and law department come up with a recommendation regarding programs available.
The receivership program, which would enable the city to remove abandoned or unsafe buildings, was presented by Planning Director Robert S. Frankland to City Council recently. He said there are four to six abandoned properties in Solon that pose a health and safety hazard and cannot be addressed through ordinances currently on the books.
Mr. Frankland told the committee that the receivership program enables municipalities to take possession and control of residential properties that have been declared to be a health and safety threat to the general public by the courts through a civil action.
Building Commissioner Jack Clifford told the finance committee that there are as many programs out there to address these types of properties as there are the properties themselves. A receivership program would be a good way to address those properties that are $300,000 and over in terms of value, Mr. Clifford said. For those properties less then that, demolition may be the preferred option, he said.
While the receivership program helps clear the title of the property, Mr. Clifford said, demolition would leave the city with vacant land that still has a mortgage and must be maintained.
"I suggest you accept the receivership program as a tool in your arsenal to get rid of those homes," Mr. Clifford said. "It won't help every single one."
Law Director David J. Matty told the committee there are several unknowns with relation to this program.
"The biggest fear is we would invest money that we would not recover," Mr. Matty said. "We don't know what the proposed sale of the remediated home will bring." A sale for less than what the city put into it would be something the city could not control, Mr. Matty said. "It would be up to the court and to the remediator.
"Those are issues we would face," Mr. Matty said. "We would have to be careful where our dollars go if we get involved in this full tilt for the five houses we're dealing with." The process would also take time, Mr. Matty said, "as we would be getting into the fix-it-up business."
Mr. Matty had suggested that a minimum budget of $1 million per year would be necessary. He also raised other issues such as the provision of adequate human resources for program administration and an equitable system for the prioritization of projects would also have to be addressed, he said.
Councilman and committee member William I. Russo asked who would ultimately make the decision of whether to demolish or rebuild a home.
Mr. Matty said the court.
"My fear is if you go down this path, costs get out of control and we lose the ability to control this issue," Mr. Russo said. "This program sounds great in theory and practice, but we have to watch our spending and control our costs. We need to have a plan of action and not just a blank check."
Mr. Clifford agreed with Mr. Matty that the city would put out money to do the work and not know how much it would get in return. Mr. Clifford said that regardless of what the city does, however, a court order is needed.
"A court order will be required whatever way we go," Mr. Clifford said.
"What is the end result going to be with the sale whether it's demolition or remediation," Mr. Matty said.
"The big issue is, should we demolish or repair?" Mr. Frankland said.
Councilman Edward H. Kraus, who was in attendance at the meeting and requested Mr. Frankland present this program to council based on abandoned homes in his ward, said that for a home on Ledge Hill Drive, "we would not support a demolition for the neighborhood.
"The house is very visible and a demolition would hurt the overall neighborhood," Mr. Kraus said. "The purpose of this program is to remediate this issue.
"This is the model home for this type of program," Mr. Kraus said of the house on Ledge Hill Drive. "It's not getting better. It's only going to get worse."
[ back ]
