Skip to main content

Here's how to deal with Sheffield's urban blight, and literally make a clean sweep.

1.) Require unoccupied buildings owners to bring them up to code.

2.) Simultaneously create a costly empty building assessment for fire, public health and safety.

3.) If they refuse, condemn unoccupied buildings.

4.) Raze them.

5.) Confiscate the property for the cost of inspections and razing.

6.) Sell the property at auction to the highest bidder, denying bidding to pervious owners or owners parties or their interests.

"I too was at that meeting a few years ago. While the residents of Sheffield had many great ideas about rehabing old buildings and improving the downtown area, I don't recall anyone producing anything but ideas. There were a lot of people to tell what could be done and what should be done, but very few people that were willing to risk their own money doing anything. Everyone looks at the city or a someone they perceive to be a wealthy indvidual to improve the downtown area. What I'm trying to say is "it's easy to spend someone else's money"."
- midknightrider, posted 19 December 2006, 06:11 PM

Quote from a thread entitled "Sunday alcohol sales" begun 18 December 2006, 08:42 AM by excelman.
(http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5521043475/m/5151073095)
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The Broken Window Theory
States allow one broken window to remain, and soon you will have two, then three, then four...the point is one vacate unmaintained building drags down the surrounding buildings values...
I am not sure if the other owners of the surrounding buildings could not suit for damages of value caused by the delapidated building on the block.
If the owner does not have enough pride to maintain his property, which in turn affects the surround neighborhood in a negative way, then the city has the responsibility to take action against that owner...
Its called check and balance...to maintain certain standards within a area...
The City did not cause the law suit or seizure...the negligent owner did by his own lack of responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Shoals Lover:
Here's how to deal with Sheffield's urban blight, and literally make a clean sweep.

1.) Require unoccupied buildings owners to bring them up to code.

2.) Simultaneously create a costly empty building assessment for fire, public health and safety.

3.) If they refuse, condemn unoccupied buildings.

4.) Raze them.

5.) Confiscate the property for the cost of inspections and razing.

6.) Sell the property at auction to the highest bidder, denying bidding to pervious owners or owners parties or their interests.

"I too was at that meeting a few years ago. While the residents of Sheffield had many great ideas about rehabing old buildings and improving the downtown area, I don't recall anyone producing anything but ideas. There were a lot of people to tell what could be done and what should be done, but very few people that were willing to risk their own money doing anything. Everyone looks at the city or a someone they perceive to be a wealthy indvidual to improve the downtown area. What I'm trying to say is "it's easy to spend someone else's money"."
- midknightrider, posted 19 December 2006, 06:11 PM

Quote from a thread entitled "Sunday alcohol sales" begun 18 December 2006, 08:42 AM by excelman.
(http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5521043475/m/5151073095)


That's exactly what I'm talking about.
There's an idea about how to tear things down. Do you have any ideas about building things up ? What would work in downtown Sheffield? Why would someone want to buy an empty lot in Sheffield and then have to build on it ? How much would you be willing to invest in downtown Sheffield ?
Kelo v New London is substantially different because of several accounts. First there was an unwilling seller after agreements had already been made. Secondly, economic considerations formed the foundation of the Kelo v New London. Third, though confiscation was made for economic purposes using the guide/guise of "the greater good," government became the mediator in the forcible transfer of private property from one owner to another.

The Supreme Court summary of Kelo v New London stated in part that the "respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell."

In the scenario presented about Sheffield, the health and safety of the community is at stake. In New London, it was not. Kelo v New London was about governmental confiscation of private property for economic development.

In Alabama, there is an exception for blighted property damaging to public health and safety.

S.B. 68 – Approved by Governor 8/3/2005
* Prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development, generating tax revenue or for the transfer of property from a private party to another.
* Provides exception for the taking of blighted property.

H.B. 654 – Approved by Governor 4/25/2006
* Prohibits the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment without the consent of the owner.
* Stipulates that blighted property is that which is damaging to public health and safety.

Code of Alabama, 1975
http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/18-1B-2.htm
Section 18-1B-2
Limitations on condemnation.

(a) Neither the State of Alabama, nor any of its departments, divisions, agencies, commissions, corporations, boards, authorities, or other entities, nor any agency, corporation, district, board, or other entity organized by or under the control of any municipality or county in the state and vested by law to any extent whatsoever with the power of eminent domain may condemn property for the purpose of nongovernmental retail, office, commercial, residential, or industrial development or use; provided, however, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to the exercise of the powers of eminent domain by any county, municipality, housing authority, or other public entity based upon a finding of blight in an area covered by any redevelopment plan or urban renewal plan pursuant to Chapters 2 and 3 of Title 24, or to the exercise of eminent domain by or for the benefit of public utilities or other entities engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of telephone, gas, electricity, water, sewer, or other utility products or services. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit the state or a municipal or county governing body from exercising the power of eminent domain for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, or operating streets and roadways, government buildings, or park and recreation facilities.

(b) Property condemned by an entity described in subsection (a), if not ever used for the purpose or purposes for which it was condemned or for some other public use, that is subsequently determined to be sold, shall be first offered for sale to the person or persons from whom the property was condemned, or his or her known or ascertainable heirs or assigns, at the price which was paid for the property, less such amount, if any, as the person shall show by good and sufficient documentation to be the amount of income and transaction taxes, if any, actually paid in connection therewith, and if the offer shall not be accepted within 90 days from the date it is made, the property may be sold to any other person or persons but only at public sale after legal notice is given.
(Act 2005-313, 1st Sp. Sess., §3.)
It won't happen, not too terribly long ago there were accusations against some city council members and some private concerns over just this thing. I'm a bit foggy on details, but properties were condemned, given to "charity", then resold by the charity, to the people condemning the buildings at reduced prices.

Besides, what good would it do? Are empty lots growing weeds really that much better than empty buildings? At least the buildings are taxed property. Would empty lots really sell? I can think of a few that have been vacant for years and the only thing they are used for is parking lots for police. Fine the owners and jail them if the properties aren't fixed. It would be cheaper to fix the existing structures than replace, and would force owners to use or sell the properties.
Q: Besides, what good would it do?
A: The elimination of a safety and public health hazard benefits everyone.


Q: Are empty lots growing weeds really that much better than empty buildings?
A: Everyone benefits from the elimination of a safety and public health hazard.

Point: At least the buildings are taxed property.
Counterpoint: That's like a man saying, 'at least I'm still married,' even though he knows his wife regularly commits adultery, and doesn't plan on changing behavior. What's the point? To keep an empty building, or an occupied one?

Q: Would empty lots really sell?
A: Empty lots sell every day! Just drive around and look. The answer is a resounding YES!

Point: I can think of a few that have been vacant for years and the only thing they are used for is parking lots for police.
Counterpoint: At least they're not infested with rats, rabies-carrying bats, roaches, mold, mildew, leaking water into adjacent buildings, fire hazards.

Point: Fine the owners and jail them if the properties aren't fixed.
Counterpoint: Agreed. I suggest a fine of $1000/day.

Point: It would be cheaper to fix the existing structures than replace, and would force owners to use or sell the properties.
Counterpoint: If it were so, why have the property owners not done it already? They're clearly negligent, and city officials are, much like a dysfunctional human relationship, enabling them. That's the entire reason for creating a rule and accompanying fine for any uninhabited building to maintain upkeep and meet regular building codes and inspections.
Counterpoint: If it were so, why have the property owners not done it already? They're clearly negligent, and city officials are, much like a dysfunctional human relationship, enabling them. That's the entire reason for creating a rule and accompanying fine for any uninhabited building to maintain upkeep and meet regular building codes and inspections.

Rebuttal: This is Sheffield we're talkin about. Enforcement of laws isn't always top notch especially at the top levels.

Counterpoint: Agreed. I suggest a fine of $1000/day.

Rebuttal: I think it is $500 or so right now.

Not naming any names, but there is one woman who owns 3 properties but lives in Florida, two downtown, one not far from it, the latter can only be called a shack or shanty, the only times the grass has been cut, the city did it,and yet hasn't been jailed for failure to pay the fines. The two downtown buildings, while in bad shape aren't total losses, just in need of repair.
Name names!

It's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD!

For example, the Darbys are well known to have buildings that have caved-in roofs which, leaking water, have also damaged the Sheffield City Library, and caused health problems with the associated mold which infested the building.

In fact, the city of Sheffield had a very contentious and public airing of the issue not too long ago. I don't recall if a court was involved or not. But if it was, I wouldn't be surprised.

Eventually, the city of Sheffield won damages from the Darbys. And they were required to repair their own building and the city's building, and to replaced the library holdings damaged by mold.
Shoals Lover,

Thank you for the exposition on Kelo. I was really to lazy to go back and read it, and as a result I just said it wasn't exactly the same situation.

Listen, I'm all for going through and getting rid of these buildings. And you're right about the blighted area exceptions. The supreme court has always allowed that, and it's good to see that it is written into the Alabama statute.

The problem Sheffield would run into though is that many people wouldn't be able to see the difference between Kelo and this. So it might be quite unpopular. I wish that they would do your idea and then turn it into an upscale retail/entertainment area.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×