On the Wichita City Council agenda today is a new “StopBlight” program to address the scourge of abandoned and neglected houses in some Wichita neighborhoods. The initiative is long overdue. Nobody should have to live next to these dumps. Too many deadbeat owners have been able to avoid making repairs to their blighted properties.
The new rules would, among other changes, increase fines for offenders, force owners to register vacant properties that have been boarded up for more than 90 days, and require them to submit an action plan for repairs.
One question mark about the program: Are there enough city inspectors to enforce the program and give it some bite?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
14 Comments
Wait a dern tootin minute there Randy.That’s MY house in the picture,AND I’ll have you know that I just won the “Redneck yard of the week” contest.
What good will reporting the houses do? A house (dump) across the street from me has been boarded up and condemned for two years, the weeds are over 5 feet tall, I called in on the weeds 3 times last year, they were never cut!
Light a match, problem solved.
What do we do about the “blight” caused by a property owner who resides in the property, unable to maintain it due to loss of income, illness, etc. While I’m all for dealing harshly with absentee landowners not maintaining their vacant properties, will there be some exception for the admitted minority who, for reasons beyond their control, cannot afford to maintain the property, but yet can’t sell it in its current condition; who don’t want to sell it, because it is home; and those who would take care of it, if they were able.
Randy’s comments center on the “abandoned” property issues, but it is my understanding there are sanctions for properties not abandoned, but are not kept up. If my understanding is incorrect, please show me. If there are exceptions for situations like I set out above, let me know.
VT – I think the city and other agencies have resources to help those you refer to.
When I bought my first home, many years ago, it was an older somewhat rundown house in an older neighborhood. All of the other houses in the area had been cleaned up nicely; mine was the last one. When I asked neighbors for advice and to borrow tools (I had never done this before) I got all sorts of help. Guy down the street had a compressor to spray paint; guy across the street an expert at landscaping, etc etc. Amazing their reaction knowing I was serious. Got it in shape pretty quickly.
Good neighbor helping neighbor story hmmmm. We could use more of that.
There are worse things than “blight”. I’ll take the occasional overgrown lawn or junker car to gated community regulations anyday.
hmmm, good to know. About 20 years ago, I had a pro bono case dealing with the then current ordinances and an impoverished homeowner. For whatever reason, we were getting no assistance from the neighborhood. There was a paucity of programs available, and we had quite a fight on our hands. IIRC, the homeowner got a loan, with a mortgage, to be repaid on death or sale; but, even then, it seemed to be a Herculean task to qualify, etc.
VT – there were a few afternoons with the ballgame on the radio real loud and a case of cold beer being passed around … I benefitted and so (indirectly) did my neighbors.
There are two “blighted”, I call them “tired” mostly residential area’s, that might look and act bad now, where major redevelopment of the LAND can happen.
I’m not even looking at today’s depreciation of home values either.
There is formula to pay for properties that is more than fair. Its not always straight cash either.
The downtown arena property sitauation is in a “few” hands where that development money is going.
I want more of Wichita to benefit from development dollars not using residential area’s on purpose, its just becuase those are th best locations to put “public use” structures.
Development that will move people around the city as they find another place to live. It won’t be harsh moving either. Assistance to move in every way, paid for and renter’s benefit as well. Likely, renters might get paid rent elsewhere for three years.
This isn’t minor improvement projects for the community. It’s bettering this city with “public use” facilities we need for tourism and gathering reasons.
Wichitans need places to gather and see events more than the arena.
Citizens will appreciate business efforts to make these projects happen. Not the overbearing gov’s demanding people to move with eminent domain threats. The approach is different.
Blighted and tired areas of town are rich places to me, because they are in the right location.
It has to be “public use” projects, I’m not a supporter of malls replacing residential areas. Especially if govs are forcing malls built by eminent domain.
No neighborhood should have to allow boarded up homes or weed and trash filled yards. Crackdown on slum lords and sloppy renters.
Nobody should Mrage, but it is the real world. We should do something about it. I’ve seen Menonite Housing being built in blighted areas, so somebody is doing something about it.
We could level the areas and put FEMA trailers. What people need is good and safe housing. Blighted houses are usually pretty old and out of code.
“It won’t be harsh moving either”
So you say. The record says otherwise. Lo-ball appraisals; short lead times; costs several times the money to get replacement property; little or no relocation assistance; available places outside of bus range.
You want my house; you are welcome to it. As long as you write me a big enough check!
Joe,
No, we can’t tear down substandard housing and put up FEMA trailers! Unless that property is already on the list for Mennonite Housing or any other build with sweat equity agency.
FEMA trailers would be against housing codes. Especially since its not a tragedy from flooding or immediate environmental problems.
Tear some properties completely down is preferable and assist renters to find another place to live. Rental owners can be forced to destroy buildings that are a health risk. The City has to enforce those efforts more often.
If property owners live somewhere and let their place go to hell, its harder to force them off. One guy let his roof fall in for months but was building an office in the backyard and changed the property to commercial. Those efforts took months and looked really ugly. But its very nice now as a business location. His property was on corner of a busy street.
I hate older neighborhoods when duplex apartments are put in between two single family home lots.
Who allows that?
Is there bank fraud going on, or mortgage abandonment by banks, unwilling to seize bad properties.
Some terrible properties haven’t been seized by banks or individuals when the financing defaults. Cost of cleaning up they don’t want to pay for.
—-
hmmmm,
If you live in the area’s I’m looking at, double the appraised value plus moving expenses ( we provide the moving trucks) and closing costs on new property your buying. Each property negotiation has some variances. What’s good for you is different than someone else. I know nearly every property value in the area’s I’m looking at.
There are some small businesses to relocate as well in each area. That will be tricky but doable. Some research those business can still do well relocate. That spot isn’t really necessary to their profits.
I did talk with one older guy lived in his house since 1969 in a zone, I’m considering and he had no idea what decesion to make until its properly offered. But it didn’t sound like he would fight the redevelopment plan at all.
Business allocation is not same as the gov eminent domain in this process. Biz shouldn’t go behind gov’s first to get this process going. Some do and it becomes a huge argument.
The process you don’t like at all, good ol boy, back room dealing.
In another state a development is offering every residential property owner $80,000 + appraised value and the gov there is threatening emiment domain because it was approved by a vote. Before any property negotiation was discussed, the wrong way to do that.That’s a back room deal at expense of property owners.
Marge – if you are indeed doing what you claim to be doing I look forward to seeing groundbreaking. Unfortunately, I have been watching far too much hostile land siezure lately.
My efforts will be public knowledge “eventually”.
The problem using inner city land are ancient underground utilities and those costs can’t be pre-determined. Have to win bond financing from the city gov, an idea of it, prior to going full steam ahead, acquiring properties. Finance the land re-engineering and combine blocks back to one plot of land.
It has to be a business first process with the gov’s blessing. Not the gov with a back room deal already done with a business to screw property owners. Threatening hostile eminent domain and less pay for properties without discussion.
People and business can’t get really rich without taking advantage. They take advantage by process whenever its possible!
We will be taken advantage of by contractors, have no doubts!