3224 McHenry Avenue, Westwood
Retail store
DOB: 1930
Died: March 2009
Cause of death: A leaking foundation, cracks in the mortar joints. A small fire occurred in the building in 2006.
A criminal case was filed against the owner in March 2008, and he was entered into a diversion program after pleading "no contest". After failing to meet compliance requirements, he was found guilty, given a 180-day suspended sentence, fined $500 ($400 suspended), and given two years probation.
This 434-square-foot building was condemned in May 2006, declared a public nuisance in April 2008, and identified as blighted a few months later during the Neighborhood Enhancement Program blitz. It was razed by the City.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Wrecking Cincinnati, 11/3/09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
Recent Comments
2 comments:
Here's seemingly a case of proper building code enforcement where the property owner was held responsible: "A criminal case was filed against the owner in March 2008, and he was entered into a diversion program after pleading "no contest". After failing to meet compliance requirements, he was found guilty, given a 180-day suspended sentence, fined $500 ($400 suspended), and given two years probation." So, in the end, the owner had to pay a whopping $100, received deferred adjudication, and had to enter into a diversion program while the City was out thousands of dollars in taxpayer funded demolition costs. Sounds very fair to me. What might seem even fairer would be to send the owner an IRS 1099 for the costs of demolition although there is probably no legal basis for doing so. Once again, taxpayers are left holding the bag. The loss of this relatively non-descript building is not the important issue-the issue is why a property owner has to go to a couple of "diversion" meetings, pay only $100, and then gets a multi-thousand dollar demolition job in return paid for at taxpayer's expense. Why should taxpayers have to pay for a private property owner's negligence? It seems like a very light tap on the wrist to me and encourages rather than deters more neglect by other uncaring owners. If word got around that negligent property owners were being heavily fined and routinely jailed, you'd be amazed at how many problem properties either were quickly fixed up or sold. It's always easier to spend other people's (taxpayer's) money than to hold property owners responsible for their own negligence. I'm sure those employed in the demolition business will appreciate continuing this current policy.
^ @John S: Amen! Can't add anything to that = perfect.
Post a Comment