Missing House at 3216 3rd Ave S
Summary
- There are 22 posts — by 12 authors — in this topic.
-
Posts with files From File Date Madeline Douglass 2009 Mar 24 20:30 UTC - Latest post made by Madeleine Baran at 2009 Jun 07 21:46 UTC
I hear what David, Caty, and Madeline are saying, but, frankly, I think saving usable houses is not going to happen. First, municipalities are going to have to change the criteria for housing to one that is much more energy efficient than anything being built at the moment (with, I think, only two exceptions in Minneapolis as of now--one in North Mpls and one on Wentworth South). Smaller, houses that are geothermal and whatever else can be built in to conserve energy will have to be the rule of the day, like it or not. Second, the trend in this city has veered sharply away from community input into decisions which affect neighborhoods. That is about who controls what happens. Democracy is messy and time consuming and very few people who wind up in public office want democracy, particularly grass roots democracy. They want the veneer of democracy to get elected, but after taking office listening to "the people" who want to control what happens in their neighborhoods is just a pain in the tush for them. I would dearly love to have forward-thinking hands on the reins at GMMHC (and all the other non-profit developers), since the houses they build are, for the most part, unfortunate. Any developer who is getting public money to build should have to adhere to a higher standard, a standard which takes into consideration all the possible energy efficient elements. They should also have to adapt to new energy efficiencies as they come on line. Frankly, most of the non-profit developers are only held to a dollar standard, not to any particular aesthetics or energy efficiencies. My own 1912 house is not even the least bit energy efficient and a series of Frank Lloyd Wrong decisions and age have made it worse than it was originally. If it were not for the fact that it is built of concrete, it would probably have been torn down years ago for commercial development. Were logic the only consideration, it would have been no more than a picture in the Hennepin County History Museum long since (probably c. 1975). David's house would have gone even sooner since his is located in "edge land" along the freeway and is even older. There are nine levels to the fabled city of Troy (as in Helen of Troy), which means it was razed and rebuilt nine times before it was abandoned. Cities remake themselves on a regular basis and our city is no different in that respect.
To the point of energy efficiency, I would just like to point out that it will take an AWEFUL lot of cfl bulbs and solar panels to make up for the waste impact of throwing an entire three-story home in a landfill... to say nothing of the energy used in the milling, fabricating, transporting and assembling a new structure. And this is a point which is repeatedly ignored when discussing demolition and "green" housing initiatives. As has already been stated, the greenest building is an existing building. Connie Nompelis Willard-Hay
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> wrote: > From: WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> > Subject: [Mpls] Missing House at 3216 3rd Ave S > To: "aa MPLS forum" <email obscured>> > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 5:09 PM > I hear what David, Caty, and Madeline are saying, but, > frankly, I think saving usable houses is not going to > happen. First, municipalities are going to have to change > the criteria for housing to one that is much more energy > efficient than anything being built at the moment (with, I > think, only two exceptions in Minneapolis as of now--one in > North Mpls and one on Wentworth South). Smaller, houses that > are geothermal and whatever else can be built in to conserve > energy will have to be the rule of the day, like it or not.
This is fascinating. I still wonder why none of it was shared (or at least the intention to demolish) with the neighborhood organization. CANDO members and residents have been exceedingly vocal about their concerns with respect to demolition, and have included the preservation of existing housing stock as a key component in our strategic plan. We have had numerous conversations with city folks like Tom Deegan, Cherie Shoquist, CM Glidden and others about CANDO members' desire to be notified of wrecking permits and/or directors orders to raze and remove structures in the neighborhood. Perhaps we should have been having those same conversations with GMHC officials as well. Connie Nompelis (CANDO Housing Committee)
--- On Fri, 3/20/09, Laura Waterman Wittstock <email obscured>> wrote: > From: Laura Waterman Wittstock <email obscured>> > Subject: [Mpls] Re: Re: Missing House at 3216 3rd Ave S > To: "aa MPLS forum" <email obscured>> > Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 10:53 PM > Being on the board of GMHC, I know a little about this > property. > There were circumstances which can't be discussed on a > public forum > that led directly to the decision to tear the house down. > However, > there was a lot of discussion prior to the decision and the > condition > of the house was fragile and the cost of renovation too > excessively > high to benefit a new owner's investment. The interior > stability was > greatly compromised made by unusual prior changes. > > Laura > Southeast/Como
I agree with all of this. I used to work with Myron Orfield and he studied the real costs of development, not just in cost of materials, but in other infrastructure costs associated with less-dense development or sprawl. He advocated for a more regional approach to planning for land use, housing and taxation. I don't know as much as Connie, Jim and others on this list, but I am getting a lesson right now. My house is about a 100 years old, and I am in the process of restoring a 90 year old house in NOMI that had sat empty for 2 years. I have had some interesting discussions with the city inspector who does not see any inherent value in restoration and reuse. Does anyone know - how much do our building codes take into account real costs and benefits like this? Are there any good resources for making decisions about when to keep/when to replace things like appliciances, windows and doors, lathe & plaster v. sheetrock, etc.? I am trying to make good decisions, but most often just doing a little math in my head, then guessing. Of course I am looking at it from an individual perspective, but I agree with Chris that our rules and tax laws should be designed to measure and for developers/owners to pay real short and long terms costs to prevent their externalization. Nikki Carlson Linden Hills
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Chris Johnson <email obscured>> wrote: > Constance Nompelis wrote: > > To the point of energy efficiency, I would just like to point out that it > will take an AWEFUL lot of cfl bulbs and solar panels to make up for the > waste impact of throwing an entire three-story home in a landfill... to say > nothing of the energy used in the milling, fabricating, transporting and > assembling a new structure. > > > > And this is a point which is repeatedly ignored when discussing > demolition and "green" housing initiatives. > > > > As has already been stated, the greenest building is an existing > building. > > > > Connie Nompelis > > Willard-Hay > > > > --- On Fri, 3/20/09, WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> wrote: > > > >> From: WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> > >> Subject: [Mpls] Missing House at 3216 3rd Ave S > >> To: "aa MPLS forum" <email obscured>> > >> Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 5:09 PM > >> I hear what David, Caty, and Madeline are saying, but, > >> frankly, I think saving usable houses is not going to > >> happen. First, municipalities are going to have to change > >> the criteria for housing to one that is much more energy > >> efficient than anything being built at the moment (with, I > >> think, only two exceptions in Minneapolis as of now--one in > >> North Mpls and one on Wentworth South). Smaller, houses that > >> are geothermal and whatever else can be built in to conserve > >> energy will have to be the rule of the day, like it or not. > > > Connie's point is important. The amount of petroleum-based energy that > goes > into a new house construction is immense. What municipalities (and the > state > and federal government) need to do is change rules and tax law to recognize > the total lifetime costs of homes. Building new homes is too cheap and too > many of the real costs are externalized. > > Americans, especially those west of the original 13 states, throw away > buildings at an insane rate. Meanwhile, Europeans continue to rehab and > reuse > buildings for hundreds and hundreds of years. Buildings built in the 16th > and > 17th centuries are common. > > Far too long have our development policies, urban planning and building > codes > been driven by those who make short term profit in the new building > construction industries (including mortgage companies, of course). > > I have yet to see any new home construction at an affordable price that is > any > where near as durable and high quality as most homes built before, say, > 1960. > I used to own a home built in about 1883 in Chaska. It's still standing. > Barring any governmental or owner stupidity, it will likely be standing in > 2083 -- 200 years later. Very few homes built since will still be standing > even after 100 years. The materials are not durable and the techniques are > poor, no matter how "green" or "energy efficient" they might be. > > Amen, Connie! > > -- > >
I believe that City Inspectors, Contractors and Developers are basically all the same type of guy with the same world view. They see inherent value in things that A. Don't require much work (such as inspection of "new" construction) and don't require them to make multiple trips to old houses that have been neglected. B. Will make them a profit. It's reality that people like myself who haven't the know how to rehab anything...will always have to rely on people who will charge a premium and then some for everything...so why would they want to for example to repair a few baseboard heaters missing copper (just what's needed) when they can gouge you by replacing the WHOLE system?(what's excessive and unnecessary but profitable for them) But there are a whole community of people who know plenty about old house rehab because they are doing it and they've learned inspired and cost effective ways to do everything. Preservation architect Bob Roscoe http://www.designforpreservation.com/ Minneapolis housebloggers... find em here or Google or find a local houseblogger that lists many others! http://www.houseblogs.net/topics/minneapolis And of course attend the Minneapolis/St. Paul home tour at April's end you will meet many homeowners just like yourself who've answered these questions. http://www.msphometour.com/ Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
I went to the site of 3216 3rd Ave So. The backhoe had done most of it's destruction. A dumpster was there to receive the remains, splintered wood, shattered glass, broken bricks, twisted pipes. Gone was a house built in 1889, just one block away from The Healy Block, a preservation success story. Next door, another old house, 3212, was well maintained, brightly painted, neatly landscaped...quite a contrast to the empty hole in the ground where its neighbor used to be. I looked around at the houses on both sides of the street. Some appeared in fair or good condition. Others were boarded. Instead of seeing more "nuisance" houses to demolish I saw an opportunity to repair and renew. Both Laura Waterman Wittstock and a resident of 32nd and 3rd responded to say that 3216 had serious structural issues and that the cost of rehabbing it was too great. That is said of most old houses people want to demolish. The block resident said that there would be a meeting... about 3216 on Thursday. Where and When? Anyone who attends, report it here. Even if 3216 could not be saved, some fundamental very important questions need to be answered and serious issues remain: The public, City officials and even several City departments were excluded from CPED's and GMHC's partnership for using all the new money allocated for rehab or new construction. Caty Royce and I have said that a list of houses pending d emolition either by the City or by GMHC must be made available to the public. The appeal process should also occur. A few weeks ago I mentioned the City's outdated vacant lot list and the lack of vacant land except in North Minneapolis. GMHC has first choice of the City's vacant land for its Century homes program and is probably acquiring the best land with money from these new programs. Many questions remain about GMHC...their monopoly and preferential treatment as the sole developer for these projects, their finances (how "non-proft" are they?), the quality of their construction, the lack of public access to their information. These questions need to be answered Wizard Marks has questioned the MCDA/CPED/GMHC assumptions that old houses are too time consuming and expensive to rehab. These assumptions can be challenged. Connie Nompelis has said that neighborhood organizations should be notified and involved about the fate of houses in their neighborhood. David Piehl has called for a moratorium on further demolitions by GMHC "until notification processes and standards can be worked out." Citizens from Central Bancroft, Powderhorn and Kingfield have all agreed that action is needed on these issues. Anyone else? Now what do we do next? Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
On Mar 22, 2009, at 4:03 PM, Madeline Douglass wrote: > > > Both Laura Waterman Wittstock and a resident of 32nd and 3rd responded > to say that 3216 had serious structural issues and that the cost of > rehabbing > it was too great. That is said of most old houses people want to > demolish. > It takes a person trained in structural engineering to deliver a factual declaration in the real world. While many very old homes should be brought up to code, many others are to far gone so to speak. Was there a proper engineering sufficiency report on 3216 or was there not - that is the first order issue. John Ferman Kingfield <email obscured>
Madeline, David, Connie, Caty et al, You can count on me andmany other northside neighbors to be there, to be vocal, to sign our names and contact our elected officials to support your efforts of putting a stop to unnecessary demolition of our cities housing stock. Please let us know what, where, when etc. - Megan G.
At 1:30 tomorrow, ways and means will approve the neighborhood stabilization funding. as stated, neighborhood impact was sought and assns could 'partake' (oy veh), etc. As has been the case since 2002, public hearings are just show trials. Might be something you want to keep in mind for the next 7 or so ward conventions and city convention. Or let those with good hair continue making our Kool Aid. link lists terms cped gap financing to non profit developers to cover gap between purchase and rehab (pg 4). demolished and vacant properties held in a 'land bank' until mkt. recovers (don'[t think interim community gardens are in cped's plan....don't strike me as citizen farmers or environmental sustainability folks).. watched some of the nsp hearings....pleas not to demolish (percentage wise, a much lower priority in henn. co), articles had questions on non-profits being considered. Impact on groups like HABITAT...diverting energy and resources to the new mantra. cuz city messed up (county complied with deadline requirements) the council voted to approve BEFORE public comment ended...despite the feds liberal sunshine compliance exclusions in this emergency !!! http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2009-meetings/20090327/WM20090323agenda.asp Item #22 weekly meetings still to come...got caught up in too many documents. for legislature...check out st.paul forum...announcements list-- alot going on ....for mpls and st paul. http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6K25YxGR3hqeGdW5nmt3Vn best wishes, cheryl luger nokomis east I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed. --- Jonathan Swift
I'm guessing that whoever mentioned a meeting on Thursday was referring to the CANDO housing committee meeting, which takes place at 6:30PM at Sabathani. This item is on our agenda for an update, though I'm not sure if we'll be hearing from anyone at GMHC at that time. If it turns out that we will, I will announce that. Connie Nompelis (CANDO Housing Committee)
I'd just like to note that I think there are actually two issues here...one is the way GMMHC, funded almost exclusively by OUR tax dollars is running rough-shod over everyone...doing what they want without accountability to the neighbors because they say: a. "its been settled" b. "the experts have weighed in" or c "the time for debate is over" This rhetoric has been employed by many fascist/totalitarian movements over history, and none are valid. The other issue is whether this home actually should have been demolished or not. To know this would have taken review by qualified professional, and not necessarily just non-profit organizations like GMMHC which seem to have fairly high development costs compared to the private market (for many justifiable reasons), but also per a recent article in the Star Tribune make decisions on rehab or demo with people not even trained or experienced in that field. It is very disturbing to me that GMMHC just tried to play dictator here and decided to demo, without letting the private market have a shot at the property. That is just plain wrong given that their funds are our scarce tax dollars, which should be used judiciously, and only where necessary. Regarding "green homes", the greenest homes (study after study supports this) are those which are already here, and any home can be made more efficient. Over the years of owning my 1890 home, I've updated windows, added insulation and weather stripping, storm windows, etc so that it is easily twice as energy efficient as when I found it. Further, the petro chemicals used for all new construction, whether for plastic siding, foam details, plastic flooring, or the carcinogenic chemicals used in the chip-board which makes up not just the walls and roofs but even the floor joists of new homes - including formaldehyde make new construction an unhealthy option in many cases. Certainly high end homes don't face the same issues, it has a lot to do with the low cost materials that the average or below average homes are built with. I am told, by the way, that GMMHC has no plans for new construction on this lot. Nice. Destroy an existing home and just sit on the lot? This is VERY disturbing and GMMHC has a lot to answer for at this point.
There should be a qualified, OUTSIDE (of GMMHC) rehab specialist whose exclusive job is to ascertain the condition of a given structure, based on standards that have been worked out with community input and support. That position should be paid for using NSP funds. Neighborhood stabilization MUST MEAN MORE THEN DEMOLITION AND LAND BANKING for favored non profits. Where is the community development community on this???? caty royce bancroft, what happens in central or jordan happens to me.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM, David Piehl <email obscured>>wrote: > I'd just like to note that I think there are actually two issues here...one > is the way GMMHC, funded almost exclusively by OUR tax dollars is running > rough-shod over everyone...doing what they want without accountability to > the neighbors because they say: > a. "its been settled" > b. "the experts have weighed in" or > c "the time for debate is over" > > This rhetoric has been employed by many fascist/totalitarian movements over > history, and none are valid. > > The other issue is whether this home actually should have been demolished > or not. To know this would have taken review by qualified professional, and > not necessarily just non-profit organizations like GMMHC which seem to have > fairly high development costs compared to the private market (for many > justifiable reasons), but also per a recent article in the Star Tribune make > decisions on rehab or demo with people not even trained or experienced in > that field. It is very disturbing to me that GMMHC just tried to play > dictator here and decided to demo, without letting the private market have a > shot at the property. That is just plain wrong given that their funds are > our scarce tax dollars, which should be used judiciously, and only where > necessary. > > Regarding "green homes", the greenest homes (study after study supports > this) are those which are already here, and any home can be made more > efficient. Over the years of owning my 1890 home, I've updated windows, > added insulation and weather stripping, storm windows, etc so that it is > easily twice as energy efficient as when I found it. Further, the petro > chemicals used for all new construction, whether for plastic siding, foam > details, plastic flooring, or the carcinogenic chemicals used in the > chip-board which makes up not just the walls and roofs but even the floor > joists of new homes - including formaldehyde make new construction an > unhealthy option in many cases. Certainly high end homes don't face the > same issues, it has a lot to do with the low cost materials that the average > or below average homes are built with. > > I am told, by the way, that GMMHC has no plans for new construction on this > lot. Nice. Destroy an existing home and just sit on the lot? This is VERY > disturbing and GMMHC has a lot to answer for at this point. > > > David Piehl > Central, Minneapolis > Info about David Piehl: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidpiehl > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5RryrKGIbBe08qY5TTiWq3 > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about Minneapolis Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/> > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > -- "We are the change that we seek." Barack Obama
I thought that the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission did not review the wrecking permit for the circa 1889 3216 3rd Ave So. Their most recent "demo memo" seems to say that they did. Yet there was no notification of CANDO, no public hearing. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/agendas/hpc/2009/20090331_HPC_Agenda.asp I also noticed in the memo a continuing trend of small or mid-sized demos of old houses in Kingfield and adjacent neighborhoods. I don't know if these are privately funded (someone wanting a McMansion or another "energy efficient" model home like that at 43rd and Wentworth) or if these are publicly funded, City, County or GMHC generated demos. So here we have, Central, Kingfield, Bancroft, Powderhorn and probably every neighborhood in North Minneapolis, and more I'm sure and our strong concern about these out of control demolitions. A multi-neighborhood meeting on this should happen. How, when and where? Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
The following file was added to this topic:
The meeting of the Central Neighborhood Organization will include a representive from GMHC (just one? who drew the short straw?) All are welcome to attend ... I hope to see people from all the neighborhoods concerned about these demolitions at the meeting. Sounds like not only was the public notification requirement ignored, but there was no salvage of useable materials (i.e. cast iron radiators, etc) ...so the Green Institute got nothing to "recycle." CANDO Housing Committee Thursday March 26 6:30pm – 7:30pm Sabathani Community Center, third floor, Conf. Room J 310 East 38th Street Minneapolis MN 55409 map <http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Sabathani+Community+Center%2C+third+floor%2C+Conf.+Room+J&hl=en> directions http://www.sabathani.org/SCC_Directions.htm Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Has anyone heard anything from either GMHC or CM Glidden on this subject yet? The most recent communication I received from CM Glidden was that she is still waiting for information from the various parties involved. I would add that it appears CPED, not just GMHC failed the neighborhood as well and must also be held accountable.
I will be at the 6:30 meeting at Sabathani tonight. Laura GMHC Board Member Southeast/Como On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:21 PM, David Piehl wrote: > Has anyone heard anything from either GMHC or CM Glidden on this > subject yet? The most recent communication I received from CM > Glidden was that she is still waiting for information from the > various parties involved. I would add that it appears CPED, not > just GMHC failed the neighborhood as well and must also be held > accountable. > > Laura Waterman Wittstock President and CEO Wittstock & Associates 913 19th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-387-4915 blogs: http://tinyurl.com/d7hy5p cornplanter's revenge
I will be coming from another meeting, but have every intention of coming to the meeting. However, if I do not make it I wanted to make it clear that i am very interested in actively working with people on this! caty royce bancroft
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM, David Piehl <email obscured>>wrote: > Has anyone heard anything from either GMHC or CM Glidden on this subject > yet? The most recent communication I received from CM Glidden was that she > is still waiting for information from the various parties involved. I would > add that it appears CPED, not just GMHC failed the neighborhood as well and > must also be held accountable. > > > David Piehl > Central, Minneapolis > Info about David Piehl: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidpiehl > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6oD6YpxgZEvwUc8AG0jvFj > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about Minneapolis Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/> > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > -- "We are the change that we seek." Barack Obama
I was unable to make the meeting last night but am very interested to hear about it. Anyone? caty royce bancroft
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:21 PM, David Piehl <email obscured>>wrote: > Has anyone heard anything from either GMHC or CM Glidden on this subject > yet? The most recent communication I received from CM Glidden was that she > is still waiting for information from the various parties involved. I would > add that it appears CPED, not just GMHC failed the neighborhood as well and > must also be held accountable. > > > David Piehl > Central, Minneapolis > Info about David Piehl: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/davidpiehl > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/6oD6YpxgZEvwUc8AG0jvFj > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about Minneapolis Issues Forum: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net<http://onlinegroups.net/> > > 1. Be civil! Please read the rules at http://e-democracy.org/rules. > If you think a member is in violation, contact the forum manager at > <email obscured> before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > -- "We are the change that we seek." Barack Obama
Attendance at last night's housing meeting was quite high, apparently there are few things in Central neighborhood that get people more riled up that demolishing yet another house. GMHC came to the CANDO housing meeting and told us all how wonderful they are and all of the wonderful programs they have, at taxpayer expense, which largely duplicate what is available in the private sector, but without the hand-holding. Then, the rep from GMHC (forgot his name) told us that they only got involved with 3216 3rd Ave S because Inspections had outstanding orders against the house, apparently for some unfinished siding, and was threatening the elderly couple who lived there with even more fines and possible jail time. CPED employee Earl Pettiford, who famously stated at a Central Neighborhood Housing meeting several years ago that "Only through new construction will the city be able to attract the suburban buyers it needs to stabilize the neighborhoods", then referred the low income, elderly owners of 3216 to GMHC. A GMHC rep visited the house and saw piles of stuff on the porch, and throughout the house. He also noted that some rooms were not heated. This led him to the conclusion that despite original leaded glass windows, woodwork, etc the house would require close to $250k to renovate (and note that a similar house less than a block away recently sold for $250K), so the only option was demolition. GMHC graciously paid the couple $5,000 (Carolyn, director of GMHC confirmed this figure, claiming that CPED didn't want the owners to receive ANY compensation) and then demolished their house. Despite the fact that GMHC has for decades notified and worked with the neighborhood on new construction proposals, they contend that it simply never occurred to them that the neighborhood would want to know if a property were slated to be demolished...I'm sure that position had nothing to do with the recent Star Tribune articles surrounding the same neighborhood's intense effort to ensure that a house on Park Ave did not get demolished. However, GMHC did promise that potential future demolitions would be brought to the neighborhood for review. GMHC claimed that the Green Institute salvaged what was salvageable from the home; however it was duly noted by a resident that photos of the demolition carnage clearly showed 7 or 8 radiators in the demolition pit/former basement; antique radiators are very expensive, and the metal alone is well worth recycling if the condition is questionable. CM Glidden was also present, and reported that there is currently no neighborhood notification requirement on the part of CPED, but that they were now working on one. I reminded everyone that in the 1990's when Merwyn Larson was head of inspections, inspections had a neighborhood liaison per his direction who routinely gave the neighborhood 60 to 90 days notice of demolition intent, and honored neighborhood objections to demolition when alternatives were found, such as gap financing provided by NRP early access or HOMS Initiative funding, etc. While this notification was apparently never required, it was the practice and served Central neighborhood well, resulting in several dozen homes being recycled for mostly low income owner-occupants and saved from the landfill. RT Rybak replaced the head of inspections with an attorney; so many things are different in inspections nowadays. Several immediate neighbors expressed their shock at hearing the backhoe as it began working early that Thursday morning. One neighbor and former housing committee chair, Kori Hennessy, apologized to everyone present for not sharing what she knew about the demolition in advance, since her husband purchased the antique leaded glass windows from the house. GMHC does not currently have a plan in place for the now vacant lot. Several area residents have expressed an interest in utilizing it as a community garden. Sadly, the vacant lot is more likely to become the future site of a plastic GMHC house...you know, those plastic wrapped milk cartons put together with ticky tack that sport the lovely foam details? Just why IS it that these GMHC houses always seem to end up in foreclosure rather than on the market? Hmmm. Oh, and, now that in excess of $30,000 of our tax dollars were used to acquire and demolish 3216 3rd Ave S, not including all the staff time the city spent chasing down those renegade elders who dared to have unfinished siding and some bad updates, what now? The neighborhood is left with an empty lot, and what happens to the seniors who lived there? $5,000 isn't exactly enough to start over. The $30,000 already spent could have been used as rehab gap financing, and if one of those GMHC milk cartons is built, well each one of those has a MASSIVE subsidy attached. Why are resources so readily available for destruction vs rennovation? One good thing: GMHC does many rehabs, and is fully aware that the "greenest" house is the one that is already there.
I got there a few minutes late but I heard most of the GMHC staff presentation and responses to questions. The central question on why CANDO was not notified led to a longer discussion. GMHC was unaware that CANDO wanted a discussion and will work with the organization from now on. GMHC is a highly reputable organization and has a decades long history of working with neighborhood organizations. I first came to know the organization through its work in the Phillips Neighborhood and the Indian community. There are issues of policy that need to be addressed by the city council and CANDO is likely to be part of that effort. GMHC did explain that demolition is not an objective and demolitions are very low per the total number of units or houses up for rehab. GMHC makes loans for new or rehab work, and works in partnership with local neighborhoods. Nearly 50 individuals, banks, other corporations and foundations support the work. It is one of the truly community- focused and infrastructure supportive organizations in the metro area with a mission to increase affordable housing for low and moderate income individuals and families. I look forward to working with CANDO in the future. Laura Southeast/Como On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:18 PM, David Piehl wrote: > Attendance at last night's housing meeting was quite high, > apparently there are few things in Central neighborhood that get > people more riled up that demolishing yet another house. > > GMHC came to the CANDO housing meeting and told us all how > wonderful they are and all of the wonderful programs they have, at > taxpayer expense, which largely duplicate what is available in the > private sector, but without the hand-holding. > > Laura Waterman Wittstock President and CEO Wittstock & Associates 913 19th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN 55414 612-387-4915 blogs: http://tinyurl.com/d7hy5p cornplanter's revenge
Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation presented the following information to the Central Area Neighborhood Development Organization at the Board meeting on March 26, 2009. The events of the demolition of 3216 3rd Ave S; •In the summer of 2008 CPED referred the owner of 3216 3rd Ave S to GMHC for assistance with his house. The owner asked GMHC to come over and meet with him to discuss and view there home. His hope was that GMHC would buy the home from them. They stated that the home was beyond there means to repair and that there were past due orders and citations from the city to make repairs and he was threatened with possible jail time. •A GMHC Construction Manager met with the owners and toured their property. Below are comments from the inspection regarding the structures condition; oThe front porch was full of construction debris and about ½ of the front porch ceiling and roof had collapsed down onto the porch floor. We were unable to enter the front door because it was boarded shut and has not been operable for years. oThe house had undergone a substantial addition to the rear. The house along with the addition took up the complete site from the front porch all the way back to the alley and a portion of the side yards. The addition had been framed up with windows installed, partial roofing, and no siding, but was never finished beyond that point and has been exposed to the elements for several years. The owner had stripped away the original siding and had never replaced it. Windows were removed and plywood was nailed up on the exterior to cover up the holes. A large section of the house had a metal roofing material installed and other large sections had old shingles with large holes open to the elements and critters. oInside the home only a small portion on the 1st floor was habitable with heat and water. The other 2 floors of the house and the basement were open to the elements and critters. The large addition at the rear of the home was never finished beyond framing and has been exposed to the elements for years. The home was completely filled with clutter, and difficult to maneuver around. The unfinished addition was only accessible by a tall homemade ladder, there were large holes in the floor all of which was very unsafe and unstable. oInspection Summary; We determined that the extent of damage to the existing old structure and the newer addition was beyond repair having been exposed to the elements for so long. The estimated cost to restore the home, if that was even possible, was well over $ 250,000. + •GMHC reported back to the owner that we felt the home was beyond repair. If we were to purchase the home we could only demolish it and end up with a vacant lot. Because the home so large, completely full of clutter from basement to attic, contains an oil tank and substantial asbestos pipes and boiler this will be a very expensive demolition. The demolition cost alone would be more than the value of the vacant lot when finished. •The owner contacted us again asking if there was anything we could do. We decided to purchase the home from the owner with our own funds. •After closing on the property we allowed the owner several more months to clear out any items they wanted from the house. When the owner was finished taking the items he wanted we contacted the Green Institute’s Reuse Center. GMHC works with the Reuse Center quite often. We send the Reuse Center into all homes before we demolish them and they salvage all valuable materials for resale. We often then buy the salvaged items back for use in our rehab projects. This particular house resulted in a large quantity of items salvaged by the Reuse Center. •After the Reuse Center was done salvaging we started the demolition process. This includes having the property reviewed by Minnesota SHPO and approved for demolition, properly removing the hazards such as asbestos and the oil tanks, applying for all of the required State and City permits and following all the rules and regulations regarding the demolition process. •As the home was being torn down we were contacted by CANDO. The representative from the Neighborhood group was very upset that the home was being demolished without notification to CANDO. •At the time, GMHC was not aware that the CANDO neighborhood group wanted to be notified. GMHC will, in the future, notify CANDO of our activities in the area. In the event another homes is in need of demolition we will contact CANDO and arrange for a tour of the site. •Regarding the existing vacant lot at 3216 3rd Ave S, GMHC has not decided what will happen next. We would welcome input and ideas from the neighborhood and will make certain that the neighborhood will be notified as to the next step.
I'm a reporter with the Twin Cities Daily Planet (www.tcdailyplanet.net). I'm working on an article about the debate regarding demolitions vs. renovations in North Minneapolis. I'm trying to get in touch with David Piehl and Madeline Douglass. I can be reached at: 612-817-7018 or email: <email obscured>
Thanks! Madeleine
Loading…
Design Party? Join our Projects volunteer online group to help design a new image for your local forum's home page.
Home - Mobile - Forums - Wiki - Blog - About - Help - Contact - People - Donate - Rules - Archives
Need help? Get support.
Creative Commons - Share our content with attribution
Hosted by E-Democracy.org. Sponsored by OnlineGroups.Net - easier email collaboration for your organization. Powered by GroupServer - open source web-based mailing list manager.