http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130611/NEWS02/706119813
Published June 11, 2013 in the Rutland Herald Springfield moves against dilapidated buildings By SUSAN SMALLHEER Staff Writer SPRINGFIELD — The town of Springfield is lowering the boom on some property owners, giving them 60 days to repair or demolish their dilapidated buildings, or the town will do it for them — and send them the bill. The town will send out letters to the nine property owners, said Town Manager Robert Forguites. The town recently hired a structural engineer to evaluate some of the worst properties in the area. Forguites said Monday that about three of the 12 worst buildings were deemed too far gone to be repaired and should be demolished, in whole or part. He said a three-story house on Union Street, currently boarded up and with a tree growing out of its foundation, was found to be too far gone, he said. Another building on Mount Vernon Street needs to be at least partially demolished, he said, since “most of it is built out over air.”. And a garage that is attached to a rundown building on Valley Street is falling down and should be demolished, he said, though the house itself can be left standing. Forguites said that the formal letters would be sent out later this week after they had been crafted by Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda. “They will have 60 days to remedy the problems or the town would remedy it for them,” he said, either tearing down the property or doing minimal repairs to keep the building safe. The town would act to recoup any of its spending, he said. He said the Springfield Select Board had voted two weeks ago to send the formal notification letter, but the town was waiting for the town attorney to craft the letter. The town has been talking with several owners of the properties over the years, in particular the house on Union Street owned by former Springfield residents Milton and Melanie Robinson. Last month, Springfield Fire Chief Russell Thompson, who is the town’s health officer, said the building was no longer “straight and true” and was threatening the overall safety of the neighborhood. Thompson even said that a tree growing up next to the building was helping to keep it from collapsing. The renewed focus on the town’s existing unsafe building ordinance is part of a townwide push to crack down on dilapidated properties and push landlords to upgrade their properties, partly in an effort to fight drug crime in town.
Hitler would love these guys! Next, lets force everyone to mow their lawn weekly and not allow any vehicles parked outside of a garage.
ReplyDeleteWas Park Street School on the list?
ReplyDelete@3:54 this is not about people being sloppy with their upkeep. This is about negligent property owners whose "houses" (and I use the term loosely) are bonfires waiting to happen. Unless of course they attract squatters and druggies.
ReplyDeleteThe Union St property is a disgrace. The woman who owns the house next door had been trying to sell her house for about two years and no one would even look at it because of the dump next door.
The time has come for Springfield to do something about the growing number of dumps in town. They are offering havens for druggies and driving down property taxes. With that, revenues will also decrease. I think the Town figured that out and is going to pull the plug on these dumps.
There are properties that are just waiting to slide into the Black River. Stand on the Lovejoy Tool parking lot and look across you'll see what I mean. There is a stream of garbage heading down the hill.
I'd gladly offer to haul some of the wood from that Union St dump to a location where a nice bonfire can be built.
I want to know how removing dilapidated buildings are fighting drug crime? It is the apartment owners who house and rent to the drug users and dealers that fuel the fire. Not that I am against getting rid of the eyesore buildings however, lets call it like it is and not wrap it up with excuses like "partly to fight drug crimes". Also, the biggest violator is the town with the building/s they already own. One of the buildings that should have been torn down 25 years ago is the gym parks and rec uses. Lead paint on the windows, windows falling and rotting out. Hey guys...check your own backyard!
ReplyDeleteI agree get rid of them at the owners expense an if you can't maintain your property then you should get a fine and cars in the driveway is fine but not on a sidewalk like they do on Valley
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the more positive moves the selectboard has made in awhile. One that will benefit the entire community for a change vs. another hand out to special interests.
ReplyDeleteDriving thru more affluent, local communities I reflect on what one factor distinguishes them from Springfield. The obvious element is strictly enforced zoning. I don't like having to comply to standards any more then the next guy. But I sure don't want to invest in real-estate when someone can allow his property to become a blight on the neighborhood. Or worse yet, turn it into low income housing.
Oh come on, Springfield needs some more low income housing doesn't it??
DeleteLook, one of the big problems with Springfield is that no one with any kind of education/asset base is going to move here. I mean why would you? Taxes are high, store fronts are empty, the people you see wandering around town are not the kind of people you want to associate with. Why not live in Hartland, or West Windsor, or Hartford? And if you can afford it, Norwich or Hanover,NH.
Welcome to Amerika!
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 8:39 -
ReplyDeleteIt is not just apartment owners who rent to drug dealers. I am aware of at least one case where a band of lowlifes was evicted and promptly moved into a house that was vacant, had been foreclosed on, and whose owner had moved to Florida and had no intention of keeping up the property, checking up on it or otherwise doing anything. His attitude was "who cares, the bank will own it soon anyway."
This made it very easy for the lowlifes to terrorize the neighborhood because anytime the neighbors called the cops to complain they were told they cannot remove them from the property unless the owner requests it.
Aside from anything else, letting the town go to hell in a handbasket is not going to attract any decent person to the town, only more lowlifes.
Start your bulldozers. I'm ready to listen to all the whining after we clean up. You have no right to keep any building that is a hazard to the community. We should have a list like this every month.
ReplyDeleteSo is the Community Center on the list?
ReplyDelete