www.rutlandherald.com
Published July 29, 2016 in the Rutland Herald
Vacant building ordinance adopted
By Susan Smallheer
SPRINGFIELD — The town has another tool to fight blight.
This new ordinance would target dilapidated vacant buildings, and it was approved by the Springfield Select Board Monday.
The ordinance goes into effect in 60 days, and is part of the town’s ongoing war on blight in town.
The approval on Monday night reflected several changes to the original proposal, and it marked the third public discussion of the ordinance.
The ordinance requires vacant building owners to carry liability insurance, and bans the use of tarps on any building for longer than 14 days.
Building owners will be expected to maintain a safe appearance of the building, including windows.
The building must be maintained as “structurally sound,” said Selectman George McNaughton, who said the town eliminated the “murky” issues of having a tight foundation, free from holes and cracks.
“That was a can of worms we didn’t need to get into,” said McNaughton.
McNaughton said he believed the revised ordinance answered many of the criticisms raised by one owner of a vacant apartment building on Park Street — Chris Coughlin, who had objected to the liability insurance requirement, as well as other proposed standards.
The ordinance does have some flexibility for the property owner, as it gives the town manager the power to give some waivers if people need more time to complete repairs.
Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda said that the second, second reading of the new ordinance had improved it.
“It looks like it’s ready to go,” said Ankuda.
And, he said leaving things to the “discretion of the town manager,” on some timetables, was more workable.
McNaughton said that some of the biggest offenders were out-of-town banks, who owned vacant property but had not foreclosed on the property.
He said that because of that, the town might be forced to address the abandoned buildings under a different town ordinance, the dilapidated building ordinance, but he said if the town acts and incurs some costs, it would have to take a subordinate position after the mortgage holder, making it extremely unlikely the town would ever get paid.
Bill Hanley, who owns the so-called “Plywood Palace” on River Street, which has been the target of criticism, said that his building is unoccupied, but that he is unable to purchase insurance.
“Insurance companies won’t carry you,” he said, noting he had been turned down by two local insurance companies in town. Self insurance is not an option, he said.
“It looks to me you want to drive more people out of town,” said Hanley.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20160729/NEWS02/160729535
RE: “It looks to me you want to drive more people out of town,” (Bill Hanley)
ReplyDeleteThe residents of Springfield would much benefit from the likes of Bill Hanley leaving town and divesting himself of all interests here.
You sound like a disfunctuonal moron from pingfield.
DeleteHydro power is a green energy and you want to shut it down.
Welcomb to pingfield
Ordinance designed to steal property from others by requiring ridiculous restrictions and regulations. Try creating a vibrant economy instead of dole industries and the empty properties will soon be gone. Unfortunately this will end up in court while the selectboard clowns dance away.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I have been critical of the Welfare Industrial Complex, the fact is that these blight properties only encourage more of it. Run down buildings that have little or no value depress property values overall. Cheap properties attract slumlords, drug dealers, etc. It's a vicious cycle that can only be stopped by forcing blighted property owners to tear them down, renovate, or sell to someone who will.
DeleteI have no sympathy for Mr. Hanley who "cannot" get insurance for his building. He's gotta make it happen or leave. This ordinance is a step forward for Springfield.
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happened with the Bishop properties they are still standing is there a lesson to be learned?
ReplyDeleteBishop properties are currently tied up in Court appeals one still in Superior Court, the other in Supreme Court. These are the second and third cases. The first case was one at trial, and in the Supreme Court and the building has been demolished. The remaining buildings cannot be demolished until the appeals have run their course.
DeleteHanley's an alright guy, but come on, it's been like 30 years - slap some clapboard on the stupid thing and be done with it! If the building is more of a thorn in your side, sell it. Call a flatbed, haul the ancient turbines away. The stubbornness to throw a couple of bucks at it out of contempt for "the town", is beyond old. People will love you for it, unless of course, you just like being thought of as an old cheap skate curmudgeon.
ReplyDeleteIt always easy to spend someone else's money isn't it? If they don't comply and the courts rule against them, which is what the town is counting on, the properties will be available for a pittance. Some might call that stealing but anything goes for a town being built on other people's money that benefit only those in the dole industries.
DeleteBill, you are robbing us of a nice view of river, which we can't see thru your piece of crp building. Plus removing it will better the look of main street.
ReplyDeletePay him fair value.
DeleteEveryone forgets to mention your trying to steal the property
Mainly because your bored
Secondly because your jealous
Pay him fair value.
DeleteEveryone forgets to mention your trying to steal the property
Mainly because your bored
Secondly because your jealous
Who's jealous? I, for one, don't envy Hanley in the slightest! Nor Bishop, either. Don't even know them. Wouldn't even have heard of them were it not for the hideous rat traps that they own, one of which is only a block from my house! I don't feel sorry for them either!
DeleteThe property would be much more valuable to him if he took it down. Probably much more valuable.
DeleteHanley's building is a working hydro facility
DeleteIt had new equipment
And they have made recent renovations to the damn.
The property is not worth more to him by removing this...
The building was where it is before you all came to town.
Open it up and have tours..
It is a green energy center.
Learn something.
Or offer him $500,000.00
To offset his loss on income and pay him a fair price also
Hanley has a running hydro facility on the Black River
DeleteOf course your jealous!!
Lol
Yeah, it was here before you "came to town" too. Unless you're about 100 years old. Way to be provincial and zenophobic, though. The remaining fact is that WE ALL LIVE HERE NOW, and there is no good reason for this eyesore, or any of the others, to have existed for so long. I also find it reprehensible that the "blightlords" of this town seem to think that they can strongarm the town into paying them large sums of money just to make their mess disappear. I believe they call that extortion.
DeleteWow.
DeleteSo your saying there is organized crime run by "Blight Lords"
You, sir, ........
Are hilarious!!!!!
Extortion.... ( giggle )
You laugh now. I wonder how hard you'll be laughing when a heroin dealer moves in next door, or your kids or grandkids OD, or you get beaten or shot by a junkie. I'm old enough to have seen neighborhoods go to hell and never return; this is how it starts! Crime does not exist in a vacuum, it needs an environment of apathy and cooperation. Run down, vacant properties and dilapidated "low income" housing sends a message that the town doesn't care. The slumlords who get rich off of government subsidies, real estate speculators waiting for "urban renewal" to make them rich, are welcoming criminals with open arms, and open wallets. So, yes, they are part of a criminal conspiracy, whether organized or not.
DeleteThat mill is fully operational and a historical virtue of pride to this town
ReplyDeleteAll ye that disagree need be hanged and shot
How about: leave him the hydro facility and exercise eminent domain on the remainder of the property once we have a fitting use for it?
ReplyDeleteNone of the proposals by the Town to Hanly and by other organizations to Hanly involve interfering with the hydro electric plant which is below the street level. Unfortunately for some time now the Listers had his electric plant appraised as non functioning. Hopefully, that will soon change. But it has never been argued that the hydro plant is a bad thing, the above street level situation, however, is recognized as an eyesore.
ReplyDeleteThe hydro plant is a good thing, I'll admit. The problem that I have with the blighted buildings is that their owners all seem to have sufficient wealth to renovate them, but are not motivated to do so. It's hard to feel sorry for wealthy people who won't their part to improve the town that we all live in. My home is no Taj Mahal, but it looks WAY better than any of the properties in question, and I'm relatively poor. At some level it becomes a question of integrity; the wealthy like to complain about personal responsibility, just what kind of people are they?
DeleteI recall being told some years ago that there were, I think, seven separate hydro stations along the river in Springfield. Maybe I misremember the number, but it was a surprisingly high number like that. I'd be curious to see a list of them and which ones are functioning / functional.
ReplyDeleteFive, and all functional.
DeleteTo my knowledge there is only one non-functional hydro-electric facility in Springfield and that is the one associated with the Parks & Woolson building. No one has been suggesting that Hanley be deprived of his hydro-electric facility which is located below the street level. But there have been advocates that something be done about the warehouse that sits at street level. It is possible for him to retain the hydro-electric portion of the building and sell the area above it, which has been proposed to him.
DeleteThere are more than 5 historic locations.. not all are functional.
DeleteIt would make a great g.p.s.
Scavenger Hunt to find them as tourists..
Way better than Poke Mon..
There are also undeveloped sites. I believe the Muckross pond powered three or four buildings; if that energy were tapped at the level of the river, it could provide perhaps 20 times more power. The brook running down from French Meadow is another one; so would Seaver's Brook and a couple of others. The town Energy Committee could look into this.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that building hydro plants from scratch ain't cheap, and getting the investment back takes awhile. What would the town Energy Committee be looking at?
DeleteNot only is building a hydro plant not cheap, but the power rates are abysmal...just $0.04 - $0.07 per kilowatt. State subsidy of solar and wind is leaving the original green energy of hydro struggling. Those entities make much more per kW.
Delete