The Permitting Group seemed to know very well what people wanted to know beforehand. Why was $400K being spent to take down a building on Maple Street, and why wasn't the building owner being held responsible?
The Group went around one by one describing what they did, how the process worked - everything they go through with vacant, run down, and abandoned buildings in Holyoke. They eluded to the long story behind the Maple Street building, and several other buildings that have degraded over the years.
One problem they listed was the fact that people flipped properties when the city began catching up with them causing the city to start the process all over again. Another thing that happens is deeds don't get registered after cash transactions, so the city wastes time going after the wrong person. One thing I found annoying is that the City has outstanding warrants for property owners who failed to respond, but the city can't touch these people because they live out of state. The city had gone so far as to call the governor's office to try and get the State Police to cross state lines in pursuit of one property owner with an arrest warrant. The city knew exactly where the person lived, but couldn't touch him unless he entered Mass. The State has no laws allowing for such a pursuit, and seemingly no intentions of creating them.
An encouraging thing mentioned during the meeting was the State's receivership program in which a neighborhood building owner, in good standing, could take over abandon properties, run them, and eventually own them. The decision of who gets these properties is up to the judge, and he chooses from a list of people already signed up. It works best with properties that still have some income coming in. The problem with much of Holyoke's abandoned properties is that they are not financially viable any longer. Even if they look good on the outside the amount of money it would take to bring them back is more than they would ever be worth.
Another positive note was the new Holyoke Redevelopment Authority. It does have the power to deal with these properties in a strong way, but hasn't gotten off the ground yet.
In the video Chief LaFond talks about the X signs the Fire department puts on buildings.
Overall I wasn't happy with the information offered up. Even thought the Group portrayed their work as exhaustive, it seemed rather weak in comparison to what other cities do. Please don't get me wrong, theses are good people - working hard on this issue, but I can't help think that with some new codes, or different way of looking at things, they could be working smarter. This is something the next Mayor will probably have to deal with.
No public questions were allowed during the meeting, and it lasted little more than an hour and a half.
8 comments:
Why not post a photo of the dilapidated building on Maple instead of people in the meeting?
Umm.. That's a good idea, especially since I already have a photo in my Flickr account I took for the Historical Commission a few months ago.
if the public was not allowed to ask questions, then what was the point of the meeting?
I wonder how far $400k would go towards renovating that building instead of tearing it down. Maybe it is not ¨financially viable¨from a rental standpoint, but what about from the öur town needs these beautiful old buildings¨viewpoint? I personally don´t care for what passes for new architecture---or what I have seen people build new here.
-Daphne
The place on Maple St would be a great location for a Tenement Museum just like the one in NYC. I'd hate to see the city demolish a tenement like this one - how many buildings does Holyoke (or western MA for that matter) have that were built with roman brick? 508 Maple in Holyoke and 78 Main in Northampton... not many!
I tell ya Daphne, I was tempted to get out my Roberts rules of order and start calling "Point Of Order!". Councilor Devine was Chair of that meeting, and she decided to close it without asking for public input.
Unfortunately the Maple St building is in danger of collapse. I don't think $400K would go very far towards fixing it. The last engineering study listed something like $1.4M in structural repairs. Before the city could even start repairs it would have to own it.
I haven't been to that site, but if it is built with Roman Brick.
Why doesn't the city sell the brick?
There are many places that specialize in retro brick, and there is always a market.
Or Better yet, why not make seize the building and tag it as a shovel ready project.
If they can spend 4 million on a stupid 2.5 mile trail, why not do soething constructive like renovate this building.
There were a few interesting things that I took from this meeting, and the investigation that I did afterward with some friends in the structural engineering world. The first one is that 20k for a preliminary study is completely out of whack. The second is that for some uses these buildings could need seismic retrofitting. that was a total curveball. Possibly the most interesting data came from a state building inspector, and from my father. Code is a flexible thing, and construction budgets for this type of hearing are going to be overstated to help make their case. In a wealthy part of Manhattan 1.4m would be appropriate, but the open up your wallet and cross your fingers method is not the only viable way of developing property.
James,
I agree these studies, consultations, and such waste alot of time and money, and really go no where.
The other problem is prevailing wage.
If you owned the building it probably would cost $75,000 to remove the asbestos and $20,000 to knock it down, and $50,000 to remove and level the lot
But being a "City Job" it's going to cost $400,000
Post a Comment