-
Login
-
Digital Edition
-
Print Edition
- Most Commented
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Most Emailed
- Popular
- Popular
« News Home
City wants to use more funds for demolition
TweetBy DAVID SKOLNICK
YOUNGSTOWN
City officials say they plan to persuade the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to allow Youngstown to use more than 10 percent of a grant it will receive to stabilize neighborhoods for demolition.
HUD announced last Wednesday that Youngstown would receive $1,096,328 in the third round of its Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
Only 10 percent of the money can be used for housing demolition.
The demolition of rundown and vacant houses is what the city needs the most to help its neighborhoods, said Bill D’Avignon, the city’s community- development-agency director.
The city administration will seek a waiver to use more than 10 percent of the money for demolition, he said.
The 10-percent cap can be waived, said Brian Sullivan, a HUD spokesman.
“There is some wiggle room,” he said. “It’s up to HUD’s discretion. Youngstown will give its plan to HUD, and they can seek a waiver at that time. It’s up to Youngstown to craft a strategy.”
The city has about 600 to 1,000 residential houses in need of demolition.
Being able to use only 10 percent of the $1.09 million for demolition would not adequately address that need, D’Avignon said.
“Any time we can get additional money for the city, it’s good,” said Councilman Jamael Tito Brown, D-3rd. “The question is how best to use the funds. The need should determine how we spend the money. We need to lobby and advocate for a greater percentage for demolition.”
Councilman DeMaine Kitchen, D-2nd, said: “You can’t be disappointed with getting money. We were hopeful with our past record we would have received more. I’m hopeful we can get a waiver on 10 percent.”
The funds in the most-recent round, like the first round in October 2008, were formula-based, so Youngstown, as one of Ohio’s most-populated cities, was guaranteed money.
The city failed to receive any Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding in the competitive second round of funding in January.
Meanwhile, it looks as if the city’s “deconstruction” initiative will end because of a lack of additional funding, D’Avignon said.
The city received a $39,000 grant from the federal Environmental Protection Agency a year ago for deconstruction.Deconstruction systematically takes apart a dilapidated house by removing portions of the structure, such as entire wood floors or chunks of brick, rather than using a traditional wrecking ball.
The city hired Steve Novotny, a former planning department intern, who wrote the EPA grant, for $30,000 to develop a deconstruction policy last year.
The city used money from NSP’s first round to deconstruct nine houses and will have another nine down in the next two months or so.
It costs about $2,000 more to deconstruct a house compared with traditional demolition, but the items can be sold to reduce the expense, D’Avignon said.
The company that did the deconstruction work, US Green Building Materials, is “not finding the market at this point” for the materials, D’Avignon said.
Comments
How about sinking the money into building up neighborhoods, rather than demolishing or deconstructing them? There are strategies for growth, not just destruction. I am disturbed by the lack of imagination in city council and the quick and summary decision to destroy rather than look towards helping foundational growth in existing neighborhoods. There is more than one way to cure the ills of a neighborhood. Destruction wipes out a neighborhood. Providing support for the strong suits of a neighborhood allows a neighborhood to grow.
This is nothing new, though. I expect the city to go with its ritual of destruction. That's what it's been doing for the past forty years anyway. And city council and the mayor have no real interest in what their constituents want, so it's all fakey fake. They're going to do what they want to do. And I will do my best to campaign for them all to be replaced in the next election because of that.
THE CITY NEEDS TO EVALUATE EACH PROPERTY FOR SALVAGEABLE ITEMS AND REMOVE THEM, NOT INCLUDING PIPING AND SIDING. AFTER THAT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COULD BURN THESE HOUSES DOWN FREE FOR PRACTICE OR COMPENSATION FROM THE GRANT MONEY.
WHAT IS LEFT IS THE SALVAGEABLE PIPING, ALUMINUM SIDING ETC. THAT COULD EASILY BE REMOVED COMPARED TO REMOVAL IF THE BUILDING IS STANDING.
IF THERE IS A BASEMENT FILL IT UP WITH DEBRIS, HAUL AWAY ANY EXCESS AND REHAB THE HOUSE FOOT PRINT AND THE LOT WITH FILL DIRT AND GRASS SEED.
THAT MAY BE OVER SIMPLIFIED BUT THE THEORY IS THERE. IF YOU BURN IT THERE IS LESS DEBRIS TO DEAL WITH AND THE PIPING IS MORE ACESSABLE FOR RECOVERY.
I BELIEVE YOU COULD HAVE MORE IMPACT FOR THE DOLLARS SPENT.
ALLEN RYAN SR
I think there are several good ideas here. First go in and recycle whatever is reusable. I am sure there is more than copper pipes in some homes. What about the nice wood mouldings, doors, bathroom fixtures, etc. Then I agree that allowing the fire dept. to use it as a burn class is another good idea; sure less to haul away afterwards. It would be wonderful if some of these old homes could be refurbished. Problem is who would live in them and destroy them again? Here is the shame that people move in to a place, destroy it because they might not own it and then they move out. So much lack of pride in some folks and this is a shame. It is sad to see beautiful homes neglected, the "I don't care" attitude, the total lack of pride in oneself and their surroundings. It should not be up to the government (that is, the working taxpayes) to fund all the ills of the world. It should be individuals doing what they can to keep homes clean and decent, keep the lawns cut, plant a few flowers....pride is lacking in so many cases.
We have a shrinking city: smaller population / empty houses. Many empty houses are constructed out of beautiful hardwoods, leaded windows, solid bricks, (the kind without holes that can be used for paving or construction i.e. they don't make them like that anymore / a sin to see such material in a landfill) impossible-to-find lighting and plumbing fixtures. I could go on - but my point is, in other "more progressive /creative" geographic areas, resalvaged goods are being used to build "new" structures for a fraction of the cost. We need to stop thinking we can throw away everything previously used and demand new more. With a smaller population we don't need more housing. We can however use the materials from deconstruction as a search resource for construction and reuse for something else / somewhere else.
Salvaged brick can be used. But wouldn't it be better if people had decent jobs so they could make enough of a living to actually buy their homes -- not just take out mortgages -- and maintain them? What role do excessive building codes, inspections costs (including costs due to delays) and property taxes have to play? I guess I've been reading too many histories about Ohio settlers living in sapling lean-tos or wattle & daub huts or hollow trees for a few weeks while they built cabins, and the first "public" building was the cabin for the school which everyone in the area chipped in to build in a day. The tiny cabin of one of my ancestors became the county courthouse... and school in a different part of the old NW Territory. Perhaps we can't afford to live in the high fashion to which the government functionaries have become accustomed. If so, the government officials should be the first to tighten their belts.
I agree with Tigerlily. Focus some positive energy on some of the neighborhoods that are still viable.
Take the Wick Park neighborhood, for example. The homes in that neighborhood, because of their original quality, deserve to be saved. And, I know there are many individuals who would like to have one of those houses. But, these vacant houses are currently tied up with back taxes, liens, and/or are in foreclosure.
One point that is evident in all this discussion is that we have a shrinking population and less need for housing. Guess what isn't shrinking. Government, taxes, crime, deficits, etc. I don't understand why more people are not outraged at these ever growing entities.
they are city resident. check the weekend vindy for examples of helping the neighborhoods.
"How about sinking the money into building up neighborhoods, rather than demolishing or deconstructing them?"
Have you seen some of the houses on the Southside? They're fire damaged or completely gutted by scrappers. The cost to salvage would be insane, especially in a neighborhood where a big beautiful home would still be valued under $50,000.