Related Story: Fire damages Wall Street home
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20141126/NEWS02/711269935
A fire-damaged building on Wall Street is on the Select Board’s blighted buildings demolition list in Springfield.
Photo: PHOTO BY LEN EMERY Published November 26, 2014 in the Rutland Herald
McNaughton wants $100,000 to beef up town effort
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Staff Writer
SPRINGFIELD — Selectman George McNaughton wants to put some muscle behind the town’s effort to clean up — or eliminate — dilapidated buildings in town.
McNaughton said Monday that he would be seeking a $100,000 special article at March town meeting to help fund the demolition of the dilapidated buildings.
McNaughton said he wanted a separate article on the Springfield town warning and that it would be a “referendum” by town voters on the Select Board’s efforts to crack down on the blighted and unsafe buildings.
The board launched the crackdown about two years ago as part of an effort to rid the town of negligent landlords renting to drug dealers.
McNaughton said he felt the town should have a “protocol” for dealing with the dilapidated properties, in addition to the town’s unsafe building ordinance. He said his idea was for a “checklist” of steps to take, including testing for asbestos. He said the checklist should go from “Day one to nice, seeded grass.”
“We’re being held up in limbo land,” he said.
Earlier during the Select Board meeting Monday night, new Town Manager Thomas Yennerell gave the board an update on the 13 properties the town has been pursuing via its town ordinances for unsafe buildings.
But of the 13 properties (one was just added two weeks ago), the town has been stymied in its efforts to get the buildings repaired or demolished.
Retired Town Manager Robert Forguites had said last month that it would take about $10,000 a building for asbestos testing and actual demolition.
Two weeks ago, the board added a fire-damaged building on Wall Street owned by Donald Bishop to the list. Bishop has another building on the original list. Bishop has fought the town on the fate of his 23 Valley S. building, and has appealed the demolition order all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Yennerell said Bishop recently asked the Vermont Supreme Court for a 15-day extension to file paperwork in the case. Yennerell said Town Attorney Stephen Ankuda predicted the high court would grant the extension.
Selectman David Yesman said he was frustrated with the lack of action on some of the properties. Yesman, who lives on Union Street, said the 42-44 Union St. apartment house was open to the elements and needed action. But so far the town hasn’t been able to take action, Yesman said.
Yesman said the building was for sale, “but no one’s rushed to buy it.”
The existing budgetary process should be adequate for allocating the resources required to accomplish high priority objectives of municipal business without having to resort to the foolishness of a "special article" at the town meeting just so a weak select board can assert that they have a "referendum" to act. For crying out loud, you were elected to the board in the first place to take action. Knock off the grandstanding and/or CYA behavior, George, and get down to business using the authority that is already vested in the board.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely sound thinking. Why I was just talking with ma, about the absolutely tremendous job we have done here in Springfield of budgeting funds to replace our sewers, tear down unsafe houses, and fend off drug dealers. Why we have created an economic miracle here with all these young entrepreneurs being attracted here from New Jersey.
DeleteThat's great that you and ma can have that conversation from your winter house in Florida and still send your absentee ballot up in time to vote yes on an unnecessary special article. But then again, I don't suppose budgeting is a problem for all of you retirees in Del Boca Vista!
DeleteNah, don't care much for Florida. Mosquitoes and gators, who needs them when you have the wonderful ambience here and the ability to wander amongst the ruins of industrial greatness moved elsewhere, and to watch the young entrepeneurs from New Jersey working the economy. Why Ma and I have even been thinking of buying hoodies -- just not sure which color to buy, red seems to be fashionable. What do you think Anonymous 12:10, red or black?
DeleteAnd maybe the town should also pressure the person who recently bought 707 Skitchewaug Trail and promptly moved 15-20 cars onto the property to clean his mess up. It is against zoning regulations, and if the zoning regulations cannot be enforced, what is the point in having them?? Apparently the town has been after this person for years when he lived in another house in Springfield, but to no avail. Why? It's time to stop pussy footing around and play hardball. I am an abutting landowner to this moron, and I do not need to see my property value fall even more that the 15-20% it has already fallen in the past five years(as much of the rest of the country has seen RISING property values).
ReplyDeleteAmen, they have started to ruin my neighborhood
DeleteI don't understand why the town has to spend one nickel to clean up property that is owned by someone else. Tell the owner to clean up or else. Throw his ass in jail.
ReplyDeleteI dunno, I think it has something to do with the fact that they have to spend the money to do the demolition before they can recoup the money from the landlord. Sounded like the Town in the past has budgeted nothing and the result is nothing has happened. From what I gathered the special appropriation article was fear that if the budget went down, it would be blamed on that appropriation and it would be dropped in the rewrite.
DeleteNot going to work unless he gets the condemnation process on some kind of time schedule, lack of money is only part of the problem, lack of diligence plays a major role.
DeleteHow is he going to get that process set up when nobody on the Selectboard except Yesman seems to understand what he is talking about, now there is a pair, McNaughton and Yesman agreeing on something. That leaves it up to the Scotsman to support it, Morris and Thompson couldn't do anything decisive if their lives depended on it.
DeleteI dunno, I think maybe Thompson will support it if the Scotsman does, not sure about Morris.
DeleteShame on him trying to destroy the Town's ambience. Why, Ma and I were just sayin the other day if we wish strong enough, well those houses would just poof disappear, in the meantime they are useful in attracting entrepreneurs into town to deal in those entertainment items that come all gift wrapped in plastic bags. And what better educational playground for all our promising juvenile delinquents to test their survival skills in as they trespass on those properties. Why if they can learn to survive prowling abandoned burned hulks, just think of the necessary burglaring skills they are acquiring. Hah, none of those namby pamby tech center courses for them. These are real life hands on training Centers, and here a politician wants to tear them down and charge the landowners for the cost. What nonsense.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea, sell them to Will Hunter let him transform them from unsafe house's to safe house's. BTW Mr. Hunter has just teamed up with mental health so every person he rents to the State will pay him more money for. It's all about the $$$$$$. Which we taxpayes have little of.
ReplyDeleteRE: 23 Valley Street. If Mr. Bishop has the time and resources to appeal his case all the way to the VT Supreme Court, this appears to be a huge misallocation of both his and taxpayer funds. I agree with an earlier commenter that it is time for town officials to get tough with rogue property owners around town. I don't favor the "special article" as it is not the home owners of Springfield who should be asked to clean up these properties. It is amazing how quickly politicians see other people's money as a solution for everything.
ReplyDeleteThen you don't understand what is happening. If the Town condemns a property, it does not just disappear. The remedy the Town has is it tears down the building and puts a lien on the property for the cost of tearing it down, it then forecloses the lien and recovers the cost of tearing down the building. But there is no tooth fairy who pays the initial cost of tearing down the building. If the Town does not appropriate the money it doesn't have the money to tear down the building so the building remains standing. This is why buildings condemned in 2013 are still standing. The only reason the Town was able to move against the Bishop property was there is a fund which was donated in trust to the town to cover the expense of tearing down buildings in the downtown area and it is located within the downtown area. There are no funds available to tear down the rest. This has been explained over and over again.
DeleteI am replying only because I'm not the dummy who failed to hear the teacher say something three times in the hopes it would sink in. You say it yourself above: "... there is no tooth fairy who pays the initial cost of tearing down the building." The taxpayers (home owners) of Springfield should not be asked to "front end" these types of expenditures. You are not going to change my mind or anyone else here in town who thinks that local property taxes are already way too high.
DeleteBut we can and should do something about the areas where trash and junk get spread all over the yards, that much could be done by enforcing the nuisance ordinances.
DeleteThen 9:09 don't complain about the dilapidated buildings because you can see for yourself the consequences of not having the funds to initiate the demolition process.
DeleteI vote to give the $100,000 to the demolition fund instead of HCRS and the VNA.
DeleteI agree. The State Administration wants to save money by peddling rehabilitation instead of incarceration, let the State fund it and let's use local money to provide the seed money to clean up the derelict housing. With the money we appropriate each year for not for profits to find housing for addicts in Springfield we could get the Town cleaned up.
DeleteAthelred the Unready at 1:12 PM, this is 9:09! The issue here is PERSONAL RESPONDSIBILITY. I honestly don't believe that I or any other home owner in town should be asked to pay for other people's bad financial decisions. My complaint is that these property owners need to be held accountable for their actions.
DeleteExactly how do you propose to hold them accountable?
DeleteCurious about Will Hunter teaming up with mental health, how does that work?
ReplyDelete