http://rutlandherald.com/article/20141211/NEWS02/712119938
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Springfield board OKs demolition fund creation
The Springfield Select Board endorsed a proposal to create a special reserve fund to be used to demolish dilapidated and unsafe buildings in town.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20141211/NEWS02/712119938
Published December 11, 2014 in the Rutland Herald
Springfield board OKs demolition fund creation
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Staff Writer
SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield Select Board endorsed a proposal to create a special reserve fund to be used to demolish dilapidated and unsafe buildings in town.
The board voted 4-1, with Selectman David Yesman opposed, to put the creation of the fund on the March town meeting warning with a price tag of $100,000.
Selectman George McNaughton had proposed the special funding and article as a way of getting the town off dead center in its efforts to get dilapidated and unsafe buildings either fixed or torn down.
McNaughton said the money the town would spend tearing down the building could be recovered by a lien on the property, and when the property owner tries to sell the vacant lot, the town would be paid back.
McNaughton said legislation is being drafted that would put a town’s demolition lien ahead of any bank mortgage, a development that would help towns trying to clean up blight in their communities.
Yesman had suggested the town use some of its federally funded revolving loan fund, which contains about $4 million, toward the anti-blight work.
But Town Manager Tom Yennerell said he doubted the town would have much luck getting a federal regulation changed.
McNaughton said all the neighborhood alliances have said that unsafe and dilapidated buildings are a major problem in the town.
“The town has to file a lien and recoup some of the money. If we get aggressive on that, more landowners will do it because it’s cheaper for them to do it than for the town,” McNaughton said.
McNaughton added there are funds available, thanks to a bequest from the late William Moeser, that could be used for demolition of unsafe buildings, but it is restricted to property in the downtown area.
He said the vote at town meeting on the new fund would be a good sign for the Select Board that townspeople support their efforts.
“We need to know that the community is behind us,” he said.
“I’ve heard from a lot of people that we’ve got to so something,” said Select Board member Stephanie Thompson. “Let’s put it out there for the citizens to vote on.”
The town itself was the owner of an unsafe building that it had received through tax sale. Former Town Manager Robert Forguites said demolition of the Cottage Avenue house had cost $10,000, testing for asbestos cost $900, and removal of the asbestos before demolition cost $6,500.
Select Board member Peter MacGillivray said the dilapidated buildings were affecting all taxpayers in town, by depressing property values.
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20141211/NEWS02/712119938
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
---
Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts
RE: “I’ve heard from a lot of people that we’ve got to so something,” said Select Board member Stephanie Thompson. “Let’s put it out there for the citizens to vote on.”
ReplyDeleteTake Lee Iacocca's advice Stephanie and "lead, follow, or get out of the way." The town VOTED THE SELECT BOARD MEMBERS INTO OFFICE. Take a position, execute your duties, be accountable, and quit dumping decisions like this back into the laps of the voters.
100% agree. If the Ms. Gibson thinks everything should be "put out there for the citizens to decide" what the hell is the point of having a select board.
DeleteAmen 11:01! Took the words right out of my mouth. Thompson once again irrefutably demonstrates a lack of leadership and critical thinking.
DeleteMy only objection is the initial funding of this measure by another tax increase. There are alternatives and I'm excited to see Ms. Thompson's proposals.
Any capital expenditure needs to be approved by the voters. The select Board has taken the first step and now it's up to the legal team and voters to give their approval.
DeleteA $100,000 bond spaced out over 20 years will be peanuts for the tax payer.
Lets get this thing moving!
Jerry
Ted Turner said, "Lead, follow or get out of the way."
DeleteIacocca said, "The greatest discovery of my generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind." Maybe Thompson wants to test Springfielders' ability to change their attitude of mind, per Iacocca's observation.
I do believe that $100,000 in assets in a bank allows it to lend $1,000,000. Instead of simply tearing them down for $100,000, why not fund young would-be homeowners (not speculators!) to rebuild on the spot with that money as building loans, rather than have four $250,000 holes in the ground in town?
Open your eyes Pollyanna! Young, would-be homeowners don't possess the earnings potential or even the potential for earnings potential in Springfield.
DeleteNo "special interests" need apply.
I think Rick Bibens would see the economic benefits to the community of having $1,000,000 spent on building supplies. He'd have to hire more people, for one thing, and then they'd have money to spend, and the money they spent in Springfield would be used to pay other people to serve them. It's called the "multiplier effect," and it works every time you get money into people's pockets.
DeleteThe banks want to lend the money at a profitable rate, and they'd make sure the borrowers were sufficiently solvent (assuming Wall Street doesn't own them, so we'd have to exercise some caution as to which banks get the money). And should the mortgagees default, the banks get the properties to sell again.
Suddenly the socialist hypocrite spouts capitalism's effects. LOL! But only when it benefits his friends.
DeleteIt's about time that Springfield got a selectman like George McNaughton who wants to get things done and knows how to do it. Springfield is lucky to have him.
ReplyDeleteJerry
maybe he should look into town employees using town issued cell phones more for personal use than town business..
DeleteThis is a step in the right direction. Instead of wasting thousands of dollars on umpteen "planning studies", let's take action and start getting rid of eyesores that make the entire town look like a slum. I'd like to see about 10% of all the structures in town go away.
ReplyDeleteHowever we did not vote them a blank check. A reminder to all, that a yes vote will add 2 cents to the Town's tax rate
ReplyDeleteI hope they voted to put 4 or 5 times that dollar amount aside to cover the inevitable law suits.
ReplyDeletethat should be four $25,000 holes. I never was that good at orders of magnitude.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point. If there is a separate warning on the ballot for this money and passed by the voter's it can ONLY BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE! It will not be part of the general fund or budget, which is actually the smartest thing that could be done.
ReplyDeleteWhen a proposal is made for the taxpayers to fund the removal of derelict properties, be grateful the voters will have a chance to decide how their money will be spent. Thankfully, the selectmen cannot simply dictate programs that raise taxes. There will be be endless legal issues.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember Springfield Hydro, a proposal that spent 10 million dollars of taxpayer's money, and not a shovelful of dirt was moved, and took ten years to pay off? Springfield loves issues that lead us into expensive legal questions; lawyers love them too.
Anyone familiar with the challenges of demolition knows surface issues are just the beginning. What is in the soils at the sites is entirely another issue. While the machine tool industry contaminated groundwater, flowing water and land, it was not alone. Persons engaged in the scrap metal business have created a hazardous waste site next to Rt11. Will the Town fund the removal of an unknown number of truck loads of fill to waste sites in New Jersy, and the replacement of the contaminated soil, as part of its clean-up operation? Once it accepts responsibility for the site, the costs may eat up more than the original funding of the proposed program.
The Town recently replaced the water line running down to the Springfield Transfer and Recycle Station. Water traveling through the nearly new pipes to the facility, installed about a year ago, was found to be contaminated. Supposedly contaminating chemicals were entering the water through the sides of the pressurized pipes. Obviously, Springfield has health and safety issues far greater than derelict buildings, and they are under our streets.
Condemned properties should be sold to persons willing to establish a trust account at a local bank for the expected cost of demolishing and removing offensive structures, and removing contaminated soils. The sale price of a property should reflect the expected cost of cleaning up the property, and the taxpayers should bear no cost of cleaning up a site, which benefits mainly adjoining real estate values, not the whole town. The taxpayers would be better served by spending money on our roads, which everyone uses, rather than cleaning up isolated pieces of real estate, mainly for the benefit of neighboring properties.
It is also possible those who believe the public should fund removal of derelict buildings might form a volunteer organization, and accomplish the work by donated labor and equipment. Every spring the Black River is made beautiful by the efforts of volunteers.
The tax payer will get their money back via a lien on the property. It might take time but they will get it back.
DeleteJerry
The town would be better off if some notable contributors to this site spent more time working on the upkeep of their own properties (yes, that's plural) than tapping away on a keyboard to expel their hot air.
Deletetheyput the line in to recycle because they had no running water down there and the state made them do it..there was no other line down to there
DeleteThe water line installed in 2013 was replaced weeks ago because the original line was carrying contaminated water.
DeletePut some prisoners to work! Have them out there tearing these houses down!
ReplyDelete...and the people collecting unemployment! If they're sitting collecting make them friggin earn it for a change! Stop with the damn meetings and get on with the demolition already! Friggin eyesores everywhere and all they do is talk about it! Enough!
ReplyDeleteWe sense The Realist is growing intolerant of the reality that results from years of left-wing lunacy in Vermont.
ReplyDeletei know someone who offered the town a $1 for the cottage ave house,they were gonna fix it up and rent it out,put it back on the tax base,but the town chose to spend $17,400 to tear it down instead,makes sense right,spend,spend,spend
ReplyDeleteNew water line installed by the Spfld Water Dept in 2013 completely torn out and replaced in 2014 due to contaminated infiltration entering the water. Way to go!!!
ReplyDelete