The first house considered was 814 Campbell Ave., which the city’s Nuisance Appeal Board decided should be razed because of complaints about such things as tall grass, the building being unsecured against trespassers, and other issues.
ADRB member Shi O’Neill announced she didn’t believe the building should be razed, because people are trying to reclaim it.
MORE: How Hamilton is cracking down on nuisance properties
“First of all, this property is under contract for a pending sale, and I spoke to the Realtor, and the reason it’s taken so long is there were six liens against that property, and they’ve been removing those liens,” she said. “They have everything cleared but the last two. And they should be closing in the next 60 days.”
Community Development Director Eugene “Bud” Scharf, representing the city’s nuisance board, which has accelerated the rate of houses being torn down under a streamlined process adopted last year, repeatedly told the architectural board Tuesday that nobody with the city enjoys recommending buildings be torn down, especially when they’re historic, or in historic areas.
“We’re following the procedures that we normally do from a legal perspective,” Scharf said. “We certainly hope that when any of the properties we present to you, that people will step forward and take responsibility for the property.”
But, he said, “We’ve received no information from anyone that they have any interest in being responsible for the house.”
Board Chairwoman Mary Pat Essman asked: “Is there some way that we can put people in touch with each other, to see if something good can come out of this?”
After Scharf noted that the city will have to continue cutting the property’s grass and making sure it remains boarded up, O’Neill said she’s willing to mow the property herself.
“I’ll cut that grass,” she said. “That house is not in bad shape, and you can see where they’ve taken it back to the studs and they’re starting to put drywall in there. It’s not a house that deserves to be torn down. If it’s a matter of the grass getting tall, I’ll keep an eye on it and cut it.”
MORE: This Ohio city is No. 1 in the nation in vacant housing
Actually, the interior work has been done without a permit, and wasn’t done properly, so it will have to be redone, a city inspector told her. And firefighters put the property on their “Do not enter” list, which means if there’s a fire there, crews will not go in because of possible structural dangers.
Board member Steve Beckman announced, “I’m all for saving properties, too, but it seems like absolutely no one has come forward on this.”
He predicted the building’s repair expenses will be too high, “so then we’re going to be right back in the same position as we are now.”
Other board members argued the building deserves another chance, while still others argued such buildings are dangerous, and a blight on their neighborhoods.
“That’s going to leave a gaping hole on Campbell Avenue,” O’Neill said. “And the house itself isn’t that horrible. It’s nicer than a lot of the places on Campbell Avenue. So to tear it down because of grass and peeling paint….”
Before the vote, board member Polly Fairbanks said, “I’m with Shi, 100 percent. It’s an ongoing thing in Hamilton, and I think it’s important to do everything we possibly can to save every significant house we possibly can.”
The board voted 8-0 against the demolition, with the expectation the city will seek another in 60 to 90 days.
Another house in the same neighborhood, a duplex significantly harmed by a fire, at 116-118 N. Eighth St., received a similar stay of execution, but with a 5-3 vote.
The city has been dealing with the current owner since 1999, Scharf told the committee, and the owner did not appeal the demolition before the nuisance appeals board, he said.
MORE: Fix or face demolition, Hamilton nuisance board tells property owners
Robert Brown, a council member and member of the architectural board, noted the city’s building experts are warning about the dangers posed by such buildings, and very likely, “We’re just going to delay something that I think is inevitable.”
On a third building, 130 Village St. in German Village, a not-as-attractive building, the vote was 7-1 in favor of allowing demolition.
“It’s breaking my heart,” board member Debbie Ripperger said about the building’s razing before the vote. “We’ve got an empty lot another three houses down, and I’ve tried, and other people have tried, to get someone to buy this house, but it is in such deplorable condition.”
“I don’t want to see this one torn down,” she added later. “It was built in 1865. But I just don’t know if there’s anybody out there that’s willing to go in there and do any work.”
During the 7-1 vote, other board members expressed their condolences to Ripperger, who cast the lone vote against demolition. After Ripperger cast her no vote, board colleagues said, “aww,” in sympathy for her. As with the other two buildings, no owner showed up on its behalf.
City Manager Joshua Smith, who lives in a house built in 1912 and received a report about the meeting on Wednesday, said he, too, wishes more older buildings could remain standing.
“If we can keep our historic housing stock, and if we can find someone who will legitimately improve it, I’m certainly in favor of that, every day of the work,” Smith said.
“It’s just I get concerned, we have so much housing stock that needs help, how do you pick which ones we can actually help versus which ones will sit for another five years, and deteriorate even further, and cause damage in that neighborhood?” he added.
“At some point, you have to almost do triage and say, ‘OK, we know we can save these, but we just don’t have the resources or anyone interested in saving these,” Smith said. “It’s a tough balance.”
About the Author