City To Demolish 62 Homes

[editor]

A message from Mayor Bill White:

My office, along with City Council members, the City's Neighborhood Protection Corps and the Houston Contractors Association, has news for you. On Saturday, May 21, we'll be joining forces to knock down and remove in a single day 62 abandoned and dangerous buildings in a number of neighborhoods.

I don't have to tell you what a blight these buildings have been in our neighborhoods. And that's why we're making this big push, beginning Saturday at 9 a.m.

A list of the buildings slated to be removed on "Demolition Day" is on the City's web site at http://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/2005may21.html.

We invite you to join us on that day at our "Demolition Day Command Center", at 4001 Sherwood Lane, the Contractors Association headquarters (that's near the intersection of Highway 290 and Mangum Drive, just a little north of the Hwy. 290 interchange with Loop 610). We'll have some coffee and donuts and you can watch as the operation unfolds and help us thank the Contractors Association for this great effort.

We are excited about this opportunity to improve our neighborhoods. This is another step in our effort this year to foreclose on more than 1,300 properties where taxes have not been paid for an average of 19 years! We're enlisting community organizations and groups like the Contractors Association to make it happen ... to make a great city even better.

Sincerely,

Bill White

Mayor

[MidtownCoog]

That's good news.

[kjb434]

Finally somebody is doing something about blighted housing and abandoned buildings.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Hopefully, this will be the start of a consistent campaign that will also address abandoned commercial properties, like those along the North Freeway, MLK and Bellfort Avenue. For example, on Bellfort, to the east of Mykawa is a large shopping center that is abandoned and falling apart. No one is coming along to renovate it any time soon (if ever), and the blighted hull makes the neighborhood look more run down than what it is (it's actually a middle class neighborhood with some fairly newer homes in Bayou Oaks to the south).

T'would be nice if the city could adopt an ordinance (and enforce it) that puts the onus on commercial property holders to keep the properties up but that's another subject that's been talked about elsewhere.

[kjb434]

New Orleans started an ordinance like this for houses only. Owners of abandoned houses will get fined heavily and can have jail time if nothing is done with the property. Either tear it down or rennovated it. The measure was pushed forward because crack dealers were making these places the hangouts and base of operations. The ordinance is really helping over there.

I think is should also apply to commercial property.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I got to watch a house four doors down from me get knocked down Saturday morning. My wife, who grew up in the house we live in, said the house has been vacant for close to 15 years. The house was not worth saving, but it appeared structurally sound. I never considered it a safety hazard, and there has never been a problem with vagrants there or anywhere else in our neighborhood.

I find it interesting that the city chose this particular house to knock down, when there are probably at least 10 others in the neighborhood that are in worse condition. There are a good number of buildings in the neighborhood that are literally falling in on themselves.

I wonder if the home's location next to two vacant lots had anything to do with the city's choice to knock it down. With the demolition there are now three empty lots at the end of our street, primed and ready for redevelopment. It will be interesting to see what takes place there in the coming months. Personally, I'd be happy to see the lots stay undeveloped...we see red-shouldered hawks roosting in the trees there, and yellow-crested night herons feed in the ditches in front of those lots. I prefer the green space. Not to mention the fact that the empty lots are a convenient place for the residents of our street (including me) to put out items for heavy trash pick-up. The buckets the city uses to pick up heavy trash have damaged our front yard on more than one occasion.

[MidtownCoog]

10 others in the neighborhood that are in worse condition

But I bet the other ones are current on their taxes.

[Original Timmy Chan's]

But I bet the other ones are current on their taxes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I haven't checked, but it's hard to imagine that these places are current on taxes. These are homes that are not livable...roof falling in, walls collapsing...true safety hazards. It appears that they haven't been occupied or maintained for decades. It's hard to imagine the owners would keep taxes current when they're not willing to keep up the house itself.

[MidtownCoog]

The Mayor said to call 311 and report them.

I'd do it if I were you.

[LTAWACS]

Why report them? Just burn them down.

[editor]

Why report them? Just burn them down.

Seems simple enough. Until a firefighter gets killed by a collapsing roof.

[jgs1419]

I understand that the houses torn down Saturday were ones that had already been in the (lengthy) legal process to notify the owners, etc. Maybe the others in your neighborhood are current on taxes or are still in process.

I don't know that there is much to the theory that the house was demo'd to make a full three lot parcel. The city may be sinister but it isn't that well organized.

If you don't want the vacant lots developed and enjoy the green space, buy the lots, i it's too much $, organize your civic group to buy them.

[Guest danax]

I got to watch a house four doors down from me get knocked down Saturday morning. 

I wonder if the home's location next to two vacant lots had anything to do with the city's choice to knock it down.  With the demolition there are now three empty lots at the end of our street, primed and ready for redevelopment.  It will be interesting to see what takes place there in the coming months.  Personally, I'd be happy to see the lots stay undeveloped...we see red-shouldered hawks roosting in the trees there, and yellow-crested night herons feed in the ditches in front of those lots.  I prefer the green space

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's not forget that the demolition of these houses is just the first half of Project Houston Hope. The other half is building on the now-vacant lots some sort of affordable housing. Sounds good maybe but, if they had done this in my neighborhood my questions would be;

1) Will these new dwellings be architecturally harmonious with the neighborhood?

2) Why should the City use tax revenue to decide who and what will be there?

I think most of these neighborhoods probably don't care what style is built but it is an opportunity for any civic group to give input before they start to build. However, as these initial no-brainers are wrecked, and as the long list shortens, there will be eventual entries into relatively intact and active neighborhoods so then this issue will surface. I just think it's ugly to have a new looking house with a garage in front in a neighborhood of 1930s cottages with detached garages. What will the Heights say?

Also, if the City were to just sell these lots at market value, it might be more profitable and private investors might better decide what goes up there. Since lots of those homes had tax bills higher than the value of the land, potential investors were'nt interested. But now that they've been liberated from the taxes, investors might want them. What might an investor want to build, since these seem to be inner-loop. High density, perhaps?

Ah, could that could be one reason that the City is going not going to allow the market to decide what happens because they don't want to be blamed for starting a townhome frenzy in say, Third Ward.

[LTAWACS]

Seems simple enough.  Until a firefighter gets killed by a collapsing roof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont think so. They will know it's scheduled for demolition anyway. Besides, I do it all the time.

[kjb434]

2) Why should the City use tax revenue to decide who and what will be there?

Isn't this the cocept of zoning that many people on this board support. Zoning is the local municipality through some sort of planning or zoning board deciding what get's built where. And depending on their powers, they could even dictate the density and architectural style.

Another note:

It is very possible that developers could report a couple houses that if torn down could give them a larger contiguous tract. Then they will buy and build new houses. But I think the purpose of this program is to replace the run down homes with affordable housing.

[YakuzaIce]

I dont think so. They will know it's scheduled for demolition anyway. Besides, I do it all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And what if the fire spreads to another house. Then you may destroy a perfectly fine house. While endangering the occupants and firemen's lives.

Also, are you saying you are an arsonist.

[Casual Observer]

LTAWACS - You are a jackass for making such crass remarks about this subject. I only hope that the friends and family of the Houston Firefighter, Captain Grady Burke, who was killed this spring in an abandoned house fire, never read your remarks in this forum.

MODERATORS - You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing these types of remarks to be posted in a public forum based on Architecture.. not Arson.

[Guest danax]

Isn't this the cocept of zoning that many people on this board support.

[LTAWACS]

LTAWACS - You are a jackass for making such crass remarks about this subject. I only hope that the friends and family of the Houston Firefighter, Captain Grady Burke, who was killed this spring in an abandoned house fire, never read your remarks in this forum.

MODERATORS - You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing these types of remarks to be posted in a public forum based on Architecture.. not Arson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Calm down. I did not raise the issue about firefighters. Of course I do not want them to be injured.

[dbigtex56]

LTAWACS - You are a jackass for making such crass remarks about this subject. I only hope that the friends and family of the Houston Firefighter, Captain Grady Burke, who was killed this spring in an abandoned house fire, never read your remarks in this forum.

MODERATORS - You should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing these types of remarks to be posted in a public forum based on Architecture.. not Arson.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the HAIF members largely do a good job of policing themselves. As moderators, we try to not get too heavy-handed; only in instances of 'flame wars' breaking out, overtly offensive comments, or spam do we delete posts and warn members.

Your imput is appreciated.

[HeightsGuy]

Danax,

In response to a few of your comments, I think the over-riding factor is that most of the homes being leveled are in areas that can't support gentrification. If they could, they would have been taken down long ago. So, yes, market demands are in play here. Trust me, affodable housing will be replacing a lot of these buildings because affordable housing is what should go there in the first place. Not every part of the inner-loop is going to go the 6th ward route, it can't. 6th ward benefited by being sanwitched between DT, Montrose and The Heights. 5th ward has no such benefits. (I only mention 5th ward because a majority of the activity occured in that area)

Flip it around and think about this headline: "City tears down abandoned buildings to allow Perry to build 300k townhomes in the 5th ward"

Doesn't roll off the tongue very well, does it?

[jgs1419]

One of the things that gets lost in this discussion is the definition of 'affordable'. I think some folks immediately think "Good Times" or Cabrini Green.

In most instances, land from LARA (Land Acquistion and Redevelopment Authority) will be conveyed to CDCs or private developers/builders. The expectation is that the housing will be priced from $132k down (about the current median home price in Houston). Most of the product will end up around $115k which is the upper limit to access the city's down payment assistance program. There won't be limits that the housing is only available to folks that make 80% of the median income.

Homes priced below $90k (ish) will have to be subsidized in some form because CDCs and builders can't make money if they don't. I don't envision too many $75k homes being built on the these properties as the depth of the subsidy pool is really shallow (like vapor).

Much of the housing built by CDCs is good quality and they are as concerned as anybody about the integrity and character of the neighborhood. One example would be the 14 houses recently built by Avenue CDC/Wright Builders at Delaney St. in Lindale Park. Those houses were $95k-$115k, look nice and were an incredible improvement over what was there. Guess what, existing home owners around the project are seeing an uptick in their property values.

Danax asks why this is a good thing. A quick anecdote: Houston is going to grow by several million people over the next 10-20years. 80% of those new residents will be immigrants, they need quality housing near their workplance. Why is that important? If they all move into the hinterlands of the ETJ, who is going to pay for the water, sewer, roads, utilities, etc. in the new greenfield developments, the city? which has a stagnant tax base because it didn't add any new residents?

There were something like 30+ thousand building permits issued in Harris County last year, 25k in the county and 5k in the city. That ain't good for those of us that live in the city and are watching our taxes skyrocket to subsidize the knuckleheads that want to live in the 'country' and drive on my streets and use my water.

It's a good thing because of social fabric and diversity but principally this is good economics.

Do you get penalized for a long post?

[Guest danax]

"The 1 million+ immigrants, the vast majority of which will be illegal..."

The population numbers are widely quoted by Housing Opportunties for Houston, and the economists at Rice and UofH.  They are based on legal immigration. 

"As for counting on these folks to keep our tax base healthy, 1) they aren't going to be buying many houses anyway so they won't be contributing to our tax base"

If we maintain our historical average of 45% home ownership, we need 450,000 new for sale houses in the next 15 years.  Many of these houses will be for second/third generation immigrants which is one of the fastest growing segments of our population and they do buy houses.

"and 2) these artificially created, subsidized housing projects would create much more tax revenue if they were priced at market"

The projects wouldn't exist if they were priced at market.  The Avenue CDC project you discussed was built in '98.  In 1998 you could buy land on Washington Avenue for $5/ft2 all day, every day.  Developments like Washington Courtyards paved the way for all the follow-on market rate development.  Washington Courtyards is a mixed incomve development with subsidized rents and market rents. 

"Government and mostly well meaning CDCs need to quit trying to create artificial economic islands and just let nature take it's course."

Nature did take it's course.  There are 29,000 lots in the city that are tax delinquent and won't be redeveloped without intervention because many of the owners are unknown or intestate.  The city needs the tax dollars.  The neighborhoods need the stimulation or they will continue to decline.  Once the investment starts in the target neighborhoods, the for-profit developers will follow behind like sheep.  Land speculation on available property with clear title has already started.

So, relax, go to an art show and tell all your socialist friends what a killing you made on the property you bought in the city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1 million+ legal immigrants which will represent 80% of all new residents? I don't mean to sound confrontational but it would be enlightening to me to read that report, if you have a link.

So if they will be legal, then all is good and they are potential homeowners. But second and third generation immigrants? Are you talking about people that are here already?

And I agree, the projects wouldn't exist if they were priced at market. That's my point. What is guaranteed to exist is what is profitable to build. I still don't see how spending tax$ benefits the city or society as a whole. Are we really keeping low wage earners close to work? How do we even know they work nearby? Has anyone ever done a study to see if this is true or just another academic, idealist theory that in reality, doesn't work. The ones with cars could be working out in the exurbs and just living there cause the rent is cheap.

As for the Mayor's program; I think that the act of freeing these festering properties from their state of limbo is great. I just think it's more profitable for the City to sell at market but, as Heightsguy pointed out, the City would then be a potential scapegoat for any new neighborhood developments that might resemble the early stages of the 4th Ward style "shock and awe" type makeover. Let's not forget though that Mayor White was quoted in the original Chronicle article saying that he was trying to keep people from being driven from the neighborhood, so there is a little social-engineering here beyond any economics. I will watch to see if, indeed, the by-product of these new affordable houses is a jump-starting of general redevelopment in the same areas. If so, then you and the mayor are right on and I've learned something new.

[The Great Hizzy!]

One of the things that gets lost in this discussion is the definition of 'affordable'. I think some folks immediately think "Good Times" or Cabrini Green.

This is indeed a serious misconception. I'm glad it was posted on this thread. And as far as affordable housing is concerned, with an estimated 22% of the COH's incorporated land area being undeveloped, it suggests that there is an opportunity for the city to intice (sp?) developers of all ranks to build homes in the city and thereby keeping the tax base strong; this includes affordable, garden/suburban style homes as well as affordable, dense multi-family homes. Just as you have a high dollar development in west Houston like Royal Oaks or a swanky multiunit project like Post Midtown, you also have those new developments being built in places like in SE Houston along Fuqua and Almeda-Genoa or in SW along Hiram Clarke and Orem. So there is obviously a precedent, even in this age of suburban, fringe community living.

The question, in my mind, though, is how affective is the city in encouraging developers to go "inside the city" as opposed to outside. The Loop has done an excellent job in enticing (sp?) a wide range of developers to build high-density dwellings in previously neglected or "soft" markets. I'd like to think that given the needs and the preferences of not-so-urban-minded people, there is an opportunity to provide quality, competitive housing (as well as affordable) inside the city as opposed to places like League City, Pearland, Katy, Sugar Land and The Woodlands. While I doubt that the majority of new immigrants will necessarily be looking for housing like what we're seeing in Midtown, Montrose and the West End, there is still an opportunity to address their needs as well.

But what the hell can I say... I'm a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy.

[kjb434]

Developers in the city are using the In-City MUD concept for large new projects. I've worked on one on North Wayside at Little York. There's another one on the southeast corner of Beltway 8 at I-45 by Ellington AFB. These developments used the typical financing and build out schemes of subdivision, but are inside city limits.

The MUD concept is a state vehicle for development. Houston is the most prolific user of this concept. You don't see it much in other Metro areas and typically they are opposed to it. Whether it is used or not does not affect what kind of development and how the development is built. It just changes how the infrastructure gets paid for: Either in MUD taxes or higher home prices. This is the reason Houston has such a low median for homes. MUD's lower the price needed for home construction and the infrastructure cost is paid by the MUD taxes.

The MUD concept actually is an incentive to build new affordable housing, but is also works great of the other house price ranges too.

[The Great Hizzy!]

It just changes how the infrastructure gets paid for: Either in MUD taxes or higher home prices. This is the reason Houston has such a low median for homes. MUD's lower the price needed for home construction and the infrastructure cost is paid by the MUD taxes.

If true (and I don't know enough to doubt you), this seems like a great explanation for Houston's lower average home prices compared to, say, an Atlanta or Dallas.

[kjb434]

It's the primary reason. Our company has tried to work with developers in Austin and the Metroplex to go the MUD route to offer a lower selling price of homes, but the municipalities are against it. Houston has the luxury of having lots of vacant land around it that is not incorporated. The only sides are the southeast and southwest sides. The north, west, northeast, and northwest sides are free except for Tomball and Humble which are a ways out.

These lower priced homes are a direct result of developers and businessmen having an influence and running government. The MUD concept saves the taxpayers from the other municipalities and counties. All the neighboring counties to Harris are friendly to the MUD concept too.