by MarkJ » Wed 24 Dec 2008, 10:27:21
Demo costs tend to be high in some regions due to high labor costs, strict codes and enforcement, underground oil tank removal, soil testing, asbestos/lead inspections, asbestos monitoring, asbestos abatement, lead abatement, hazardous disposal fees, transfer station fees, landfill fees etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')r. Rael says the city will try to negotiate the best deal it can with the banks that own the properties. But he worries that investors might swoop in, buy the houses for $20,000 or $30,000 apiece and rent them to families for $400 or $500 a month. "It does occur to me that we are in a race with the slumlords," he said.
Mr. Wood, the code inspector, has scoped out 37 potential candidates for demolition in Old Town. But the grant is only enough for the city to tear down four. Given the likely lead and asbestos hazards, city officials figure that buying and razing four houses alone will cost $300,000.
Demolition costs also vary by degree of difficulty. For example, tearing down a large multi-story structure with a shared wall, or tightly sandwiched between other structures can be quite costly. Many of these structures are mothballed rather than demolished due to extremely high demolition costs and/or fear of lawsuits from neighbors.
Single story homes with larger lots, no close neighbors, no lead, no asbestos and without a basement and little concrete can often be demolished, salvaged or moved quite cheaply. Outside the cities, the fire departments burn them down for practice, plus the county landfills often allow you to dump the remaining debris free of charge or at a reduced rate.
When I burned down several homes and three barns a few years ago, the county even picked up the debris free of charge.
Demolition costs are just a small part of the problem in many regions in comparison to obtaining ownership.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')url=http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081215/OPINION01/812150340/1008/OPINION01]Fighting blight too tough in Detroit City Council should seek ways to streamline demolition process[/url]
Detroit has 44,000 abandoned homes, according to the Planning & Development Department. Of the $47 million Detroit was granted in federal Neighborhood Stabilization Funds, $14 million has been set aside to tear down more homes that stand as eyesores and dangers to the community. More than 1,000 such homes are being slated for demolition.
But money matters little in a process so bogged down in process. There are no less than eight steps between when the first blight complaint is lodged and the day the offending structure finally comes down, which can take anywhere from a year to 18 months.
The process requires multiple notifications of the homeowner, multiple inspections and multiple hearings. It can be derailed at any point. All the while the eyesore stands as a threat to personal safety and property values.
There is a complicated web of city, state, and federal law defending properties from premature demolition, which makes it tough for the Detroit City Council to streamline the process.
Sensing this confusion, a small but shrewd cadre of home buyers has taken to purchasing ramshackle homes -- not to rehabilitate them, but in the hope they'll be illegally razed by the city.
Once notified that their homes are targeted for demolition, these "reverse-flippers" play a shell game, transferring title among themselves so that Detroit will demolish the property without notifying its new owner.
When this happens, the owner sues and the city usually settles out of court to avoid costly legal proceedings. The legal system literally rewards selling Detroit short.