dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25
reply to KrK

Re: Code enforcement demolishes House next door

said by KrK:

The notices I saw on the home over the years mentioned a $10,000 fine but I don't know if it was ever levied.

The City mayor in 2008 beefed up the power of code enforcement in cases like this because before that they were a lot more toothless and properties could sit for decades.

The city is trying to clean up such properties, but like everything else it has a budget. Which kind of gets me back to the whole why not auction it off cheap thing.

actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma has always had provisions where taxes with unpaid property taxes could be auctioned off eventually.

Code enforcement was largely toothless, and could fine, but of course the owners never would pay or often never could be found, and the properties would sit, and the other owners around them would be frustrated but little could be done, and the properties would lower home values, draw crime and squatters, etc etc

The city finally beefed up the laws, and now, after a process that takes several years, can finally take over abandoned homes. I really have no issue with that, as already I see the benefits. Everyone on the street is happy to see it go, I'm just sad at the waste of resources and the demolition of what was a nice home and could have been saved if a different path was taken.

It wasn't. I don't really blame the city.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to iknow
said by iknow:

actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.

By years ago, you mean 50 years ago?
This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25

1 recommendation

said by marigolds:

said by iknow:

actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.

By years ago, you mean 50 years ago?
This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s.

no way, not anywhere near that long ago!. you might have it confused with eminent domain laws, where the government pays you a fair price for your property, and then evicts you, and uses the property for public use, like a privately owned strip mall. OR, possibly unpaid tax liens, those are the 2 that have been around forever. what has happened here is something new, started maybe 10-15 years ago, an offshoot of the drug wars. seizures of anything for unpaid parking fines, high grass, junk etc. or other civil violations were unheard of back then, and not allowed. buildings just used to crumble to the ground, and that was it.


marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
said by iknow:

said by marigolds:

said by iknow:

actually, it's court opinions spurred on by the war on drugs that allows property forfeitures that don't even have anything to do with drugs. it's the slippery slope deal, the congress starts legislation, and passes laws, and it's good for the intended purpose, but it quickly gets misused for other purposes. years ago, this was not allowed. they could fine, but not clean up a property themselves, or demolish someones property. it might possibly still be illegal, but not enforced.

By years ago, you mean 50 years ago?
This has been a practice since the urban redevelopment of blighted property laws of the 1960s.

no way, not anywhere near that long ago!. you might have it confused with eminent domain laws, where the government pays you a fair price for your property, and then evicts you, and uses the property for public use, like a privately owned strip mall. OR, possibly unpaid tax liens, those are the 2 that have been around forever. what has happened here is something new, started maybe 10-15 years ago, an offshoot of the drug wars. seizures of anything for unpaid parking fines, high grass, junk etc. or other civil violations were unheard of back then, and not allowed. buildings just used to crumble to the ground, and that was it.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_renewal
I was actually off by a couple of decades. Practice dates from the 1930s.
But it still reached its peak in the 1960s with the HUD Act and the New Communities Act.
The blight cases wound their way through state supreme courts in the early 1970s.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher

robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1
The house which was destroyed can no way be classified as urban renewal. This was a nuisance situation where taxes weren't being paid, the yard wasn't being upkept, possible drug usage, and unoccupied. Really a shame to destroy a house which was in the apparent condition of the one pictured.


aannoonn

@optonline.net
said by robbin:

The house which was destroyed can no way be classified as urban renewal.

You'd be amazed at what can be done in the name of urban renewal. The next town over declared that a bunch of land which never had anything built on it to be "blighted", took over the land, then turned it over to a developer who built a 900,000 sq ft shopping mall.