One less poorly-maintained-by-an-out-of-town-landlord duplex
August 28th, 2009Greetings All!
This past week, our neighborhood had a small, but encouraging, victory…in a fight that we did not ask for!
A DUPLEX BURNS DOWN
Last December, right before Christmas, a duplex right on busy old Winner Road, had a fire that started in the attic. A good portion of the duplex burned down that night. The walls and part of the roof remained standing, for the most part. But overall, the building was unlivable.
Fast-forward to May (I think it was). We all started wondering why that duplex had NOT been torn down yet. Spring rains had brought down the roof. But now that the weather was good, why was nobody out there cleaning it up?
Then, we suddenly noticed a code violation posting nailed to the structure. It was for trash. (There was a LOT of debris spilled out into the driveway and the yard.) A few days later, the mess in the yard was cleaned up, but still no work on tearing down the ruined building.
A few weeks later, but for one day only, we saw three or four men with a bobcat and a dumpster, apparently starting the demo work. We cheered! But they disappeared and did not come back. Another note nailed to the structure appeared. The City was citing the property owner for failing to get a demolition permit!
Here are some photos of the burned-out duplex that I took in late June:
http://www.winnerneighbors.org/images/burned_duplex_1.jpg
http://www.winnerneighbors.org/images/burned_duplex_3.jpg
THE LANDLORD WANTS A FAVOR ?
Then, near the end of June / beginning of July, neighbors living close to the property received a letter from the City in the mail. It was notifying them that the duplex property owner was asking the City to adjust the zoning of the property.
It seems that that burned-down duplex, along with its three neighboring duplexes, were all on ONE LOT. That’s the way they were laid out years ago. Well, the landlord (an LLC) was asking that this one lot be subdivided into four lots. The reason for this was that he wanted to sell the burned-out duplex to a third party and have them rebuild that duplex. But, as long as that land was really combined into one lot with three other buildings, he could not sell just that land!
One of my neighbors, who works for the City in Public Works, told me that essentially, this landlord was asking the city for a FAVOR. She was very upset…not only about the fact that that duplex had not been torn-down yet… but also that this property…and the other three duplexes… had a HISTORY of code violations.
I grabbed the addresses of the duplexes and plugged them into a code violations search form on the City’s website. (I don’t live in sight of these duplexes, but I walk and drive by them regularly. So, why I generally knew that they were not kept up, I did not know the whole history.) The website pointed to 12 code violations for the properties, all since 2006. What really caught my eye, though, was that phrase “Top Offender Program” was listed for several of the offenses.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING
And so, we put a “call out” to neighbors to attend the Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting and express their opinions on this measure! To their credit, 6 couples turned out to oppose the zoning change. One elderly lady and her grandson showed up to ask a lot of questions about it and then finally decide they had no objections to it.
The couples who spoke out AGAINST the measure argued that not only was this an irresponsible landlord who was a detriment to the neighborhood…and for whom we should do no favors… but we also pointed out that if the fourth duplex was indeed rebuilt, that property / properties would be back to VERY CROWDED conditions that were nowhere close to today’s lot-sizes, setback-rules, and other lot-related City ordinances.
The landlords themselves (2 men representing the LLC) claimed to be totally unaware of the Code Violations (despite the fact that SOMEBODY had rectified them)… and said they had only owned the property “1 or 2 years”. They also said the reason they had started to tear down the property and then stop was that they had found a buyer for the burned-out property…and… just as soon as the City okayed the zoning change, the buyer would start the demo work. Oh yeah, and although their ORIGINAL letter to the Board said they were SELLING that property to a third-party, they now said they intended to GIVE the property to that third-party.
Despite our objections, the Board approved the zoning change. They cited the fact that the LLC had met “5 out of 6 requirements to declare a hardship”… and basically seemed to be saying that none of what we said pointed to why they shouldn’t draw the lot lines differently. (What REALLY annoyed me personally was that one very elderly member of that board obviously could not hear most of what was said during the meeting and, when it came time for a vote, he asked a few questions to find out what he was voting about and then voted. He should be removed for his obvious hearing problem.)
THE NEIGHBORHOOD RALLIES
We were disappointed and did not know what to do next. The measure was headed to the Planning Commission in two weeks. For one week, we did nothing. We weren’t sure what our options are. One neighbor found out we could either sue that board or we could write a letter to the Planning Commission.
Here is where we had our “glorious moment”… where teamwork as neighbors really paid-off.
One of us wrote the letter, then emailed it to the rest of us. I added in my 2 cents to it. We emailed it back-and-forth until we were happy with it. But by the time that happened it was Sunday morning! And we had to somehow get our letter to Planning Commissioners with enough time to spare for them to READ and THINK about it! Snail-mail would get the letter to them by Tuesday at best and the meeting was Tuesday night at 6:30 PM !!
So, one neighbor had come up with the list of Planning Commissioners, their home addresses, and phone numbers. I used Google Maps to print up individual maps to all 7 of their homes. I then made a Google Map that showed where ALL of the homes were at once, so we could see how they were clustered.
They were basically clustered along three paths… one north, one through the center of town, and one clustered in the southeast portion of town.
So, we took folders, put a copy of the letter in each one, plus copies of the two photos that I have linked within this article (above). We split up the folders and the maps among three couples and those three couples drove around town early Sunday evening, delivering those folders to each Planning Commissioner’s door.
And then we waited until Tuesday night.
THE FIRST PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Five out of seven Planning Commission members were in attendance.
One neighbor couple attended the meeting on our behalf. (The rest of us all had conflicting schedules.)
I later purchased a DVD of the entire meeting and watched it.
It took a few minutes, but we soon realized that at least three of the five commissioners had taken our letters SO seriously that they actually had stopped by the property / four duplexes and looked things over. They had many, many questions for the landlord.
The landlord(s) again stated their position. However, one commissioner in particular hammered them with “why haven’t you torn down that duplex”. At first, they again made the excuse that they were waiting on the City to finish this zoning change. But the commissioner would have none of that. She told them they can’t blame the City on this. Eventually, it came out that they themselves were not going to rebuild the duplex because the bank wouldn’t give them a loan. They also admitted that they DID receive insurance money for the burned-out building. They also swore up-and-down that they were GIVING the property away, not selling it… they said several times that they gain nothing financially by this entire event / issue.
So, based on that (and based on the final judgment that I will tell you about), I must conclude that they were purposely trying to avoid spending any money.
In the end, they all agreed that they could understand why we were so upset. But, they also said that this was an issue that dealt with lot-lines, set-backs, and other zoning technical considerations. The commissioners decided to postpone their decision two weeks (which later became four weeks when they decided between-meetings to set it back further). However, they said their reason for postponing was to research what seemed to be a compromise:
Divide the property into THREE lots, instead of FOUR, and do NOT allow the landlord to rebuild the burned-out duplex. This would make for three slightly-larger lots that required fewer zoning variances than the four-lot proposed configuration. And, of course, the part that would make us particularly happy would be one less crappy duplex in the neighborhood.
THE SECOND / FINAL P.C. MEETING
And so, this past Tuesday, the Planning Commission reconvened and we were there. During the interim, the actual proposal that the landlord was making had changed… to match the compromise that the Commission had talked about earlier.
Now, some people who don’t live here may ask: Why are you so against duplexes? Do you have something against renters? Who cares whether they rebuild that or not?
To that I say: Three years ago (I think it was), the city conducted a large study called “The Great Northwest Independence Initiative”. They held a series of workshops with residents to help “pull out of them” what they felt the top good things and bad things were about their neighborhood.
Everyone in the three neighborhoods here that were clustered together during those meeting… all agreed that the number one problem for our combined neighborhod was “Too many poorly maintained rental properties”! (This is really two objections in one, since we all agreed there were too many rental properties overall.)
As I’ve gone through the neighborhood over the past four years delivering newsletters and getting signatures on stuff, I’ve always been AMAZED at the large number of empty homes with “for rent” signs out in front of them, especially during the past 12 months (under this recession).
We do have a high number of renters in the area, but I have nothing against them. Heck, we welcome them at our meetings! The problem is the rental market here is oversaturated with empty buildings. Plus, at least half of the ones that have renters in them look rather run-down on the outside.
Based on my experience with this burned-down duplex event, I’m starting to believe that Western Independence is where a lot of rich people (who live in Independence and elsewhere) “keep their dirty laundry”. They see their “rental business” purely as “get a check without lifting a finger”… a business totally on paper. They don’t check on the property. They don’t care what happens there. They don’t care about the renters. It’s just a way to make money to them.
Now, I actually have two friends who I know ARE landlords in Independence, both with properties west of Noland. Both of these landlords are VERY responsible and keep up their properties well. One of them actually seems to “adopt” her renters, helping them out in small ways whenever she can…. getting to know them on a personal basis….and almost being a grandma to them.
Those are the kind of landlords I want more of for Independence. Let’s lose the uncaring, indifferent ones.
I heard something really interesting yesterday and I’ll end on that note: “The opposite of love is not hate. It’s indifference.”