City Manager’s

Weekly Briefing

July 31, 2012

Orman Building on Verity Parkway

The City has owned this building for 5 or 6 years now, receiving it free through the foreclosure process. Sadly, it is beginning to collapse and we need to address the situation. We are getting prices for two alternatives: 1) demo a portion of the building that is falling down and 2) demo the entire structure. The reason why we are not automtically considering the entire structure is because of the cost. It could run from $500,000 - $1,000,000 for the entire structure. And so we will gather more info and bring to council in the near future for a decision.

Are they going to demo the $500,000 house owned formerly by the General Manager of AK (KR) now up at Mansfield, across from the former home of Dr. Watson, that has been vacant with weeds growing 4 ft tall, with windows open, after foreclosure, where the owners walked away, after realizing they lost 60% of their equity a few months after buying it? 

What about the First Financial Building? Surprised LM spent more time getting pictures with BB and the SunCoke folks, than finding a buyer for the building, or at least, a tenant. 

Acclao
   The new Landing Banking legislation for 2.1 million can only be used for demo.
    However this same legislation allows City Hall to purchase foreclosed property and clear the deed of any liens and back taxes. The question is where will City Hall get the money to invest and rehab these properties to be sold at a later date?
    Also when we clear these deeds we loose all the back taxes on these properties so we have fewer funds for the city coffers.
    Mr. Adkins stated that City Hall would “hand pick” the properties that they would invest in. Will MMF be involved in picking and evaluating these properties is still unknown?

I noticed that Dura Slate was removing the roof from the old Baptist Church on South Main Street, built in 1906. Mr Kohler stated that when all the valuable items are removed the church will be demoed before winter.

The Hardlines Design Company on July 21, 2012 did a full assessment of the old Rose Furniture Company, 36 South Main Street at a cost of $4,900. The roof has a large hole in it that has caused a great deal of damage to the interior of the building. The fate of this building is unknown at this time.

greygoose wrote: VV, MikeP, Wow…… I just provided you the stongest evidence out there other than a census and you still want to maintain your postion? Were there some folks that moved to Middletown to get on a shorter list…..probably. Does that equate to Middletown becoming a magnate for the poor…absolutely not. Vivian has it right….. there were a large chunk of folks that transferred from public housing to the voucher program. It is OK to change your position on a subject when new information is presented to you. I agree that Section 8 has not been good for our city, but it did not result in a migration of the poor that you suggest…..it just helped to institutionalize the poor folks that already lived here. GG

I might accept your criticism regarding my “position”except for the following reasons:

1.     Ihave never taken a “position” on Section 8, and I defy you to quote anysupposed “position” that you think I have taken and cite the source.  I have occasionally complimented individualson specific arguments (regardless of which side of the issue they have taken),and I have occasionally injected informational posts into threads on the issue.

2.     Ibelieve that my recollections regarding the “local residency preference” areaccurate.  I provided it because I watchlocal (city) government and politics as close or closer than nearly anyone elseon this forum (if not in this city) and I thought that I could help clear up apossible misunderstanding.  I did NOTtake a “position” in that post.  Ibelieve that it also explains a possible bias in the “letter from the RegionalHUD Director”.  The figures reported toHUD would only report voucher given to local residents.  They would not differentiate whether or notthe “local residents” were long-term or had just barely qualified.

3.     Itwas Middletown City officials, not I, that explained that Middletown’s voucherwaiting list was much shorter than all surrounding cities and that people weremoving here to establish residency and get on our local residency list.  This was in response to a question from aCity Council member about limiting vouchers to local residents after hearingthat many of the voucher-holders causing problems were from out-of-town.

If you cannot understand the difference between alongstanding city resident and someone who has been a resident only long enoughto meet the definition mandated to receive a preferential treatment regardingvouchers, or if you disagree that ignoring that difference can be “a bitdeceiving”, then we will just have to disagree. But then it is you that refuses to “change your position on a subjectwhen new information is presented to you,” not I.

Also, I actually agree with your premise that the Section8 program has helped to institutionalize some of the long-time residents whoare poor.