Demolitions

If i remember over 40. The State recommends know more than the number of Depts. that you have. Certainly know more than a dozen. This should be addresed by council, who would allow for this much chance for poor accounting. 

Another great reason why the city needs to be in the real estate business!!!

Building demolition to cost city at least $500K

By Michael D. Pitman

Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN —
A partial roof collapse of the Orman building on North Verity Parkway — which caused debris to block the adjacent railroad track — is forcing the city to demolish it sooner than anticipated.

City officials were notified July 27 the roof had collapsed on the northeast wing of the city-owned building at 500 N. Verity Parkway.

Community Revitalization Director Doug Adkins the roof is now pushing on the exterior walls. He said the railroad track the debris fell on is active and is being used by “one of our major employers that has a major shipment coming on Aug. 18 and would incurr significant losses if the spur is not cleared by that day.”

That employer is Wausau Paper Co., 700 Columbua Ave.

Vickers Wrecking has been hired to stabilize the collapsing wall and roof for 30 to 90 days and clear the rail for the anticipated shipment for the paper company. The contract will cost the city $75,000.

Adkins said the stabilization is only meant as a “band-aide.”

The city sent out bid packets last week asking companies for cost estimates to raze the vacant city-owned building. Bid packets are due back to the city on Monday. The building was not on any schedule for demolition.

Adkins said it could take 60 to 90 days to demolish the building.

City Manager Judy Gilleland said a rough estimate on demolition is between $500,000 to $1 million.

“This could clearly wipe out one of our last remaining funds for projects,” she said of the city’s downtown fund, which has about $800,000. “It’s unfortunate. We have talked with our insurance company, we’ve looked at a variety of other resources. There may be a grant out there that (Economic Development Manager) Denise (Hamet) is working on pursuing, but it’s doubtful.”

Gilleland said the city has been put in “a reactive situation and we need to take care of the issue

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

Greygoose,

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

1.     I have never taken a “position” on Section 8, and I defy you to quote any supposed “position” that you think I have taken and cite the source.  I have occasionally complimented individuals on 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.     I believe that my recollections regarding the “local residency preference” are accurate.  I provided it because I watch local (city) government and politics as close or closer than nearly anyone else on this forum (if not in this city) and I thought that I could help clear up a possible misunderstanding.  I did NOT take a “position” in that post.  I believe that it also explains a possible bias in the “letter from the Regional HUD Director”.  The figures reported to HUD would only report voucher given to local residents.  They would not differentiate whether or not the “local residents” were long-term or had just barely qualified.

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

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

Also, I actually agree with your premise that the Section 8 program has helped to institutionalize some of the long-time residents who are poor.

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. Were there some folks that moved to Middletown to get on a shorter list…..probably. 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

The info. you provided can be left to interpretation. Strong evidence? Not so certain as I am reading some ambiguity in the article. Its not an article. It’s a letter from a Regional HUD Director. If anyone would know the answer, wouldn’t it be the agency that is funding it? You have issues also with this statement..... "Were there some folks that moved to Middletown to get on a shorter list…..probably". Also disagree with your statement "Does that equate to Middletown becoming a magnate for the poor…absolutely not"- really? why not? I find it quite logical that if you set the town up for attracting the poor, you get a response from the poor. It might be logical but HUD states that it didn’t occur. Stereotypically, they will flock to gov. programs. And what would a concentration of this segment of society do to the town receiving them? The typical things....crime, clutter, downgrading the image of the city, undesirable outside influences connected with this influence. Don't see Springboro or Mason doing the Section 8 ride, do you? I AGREE WITH YOU…. It was a STUPID thing to do. The only things that I am disputing is that A) Current leadership had nothing to do with it. They oppose it and B) the vouchers did not cause a migration of poor folks to come to Middletown, they werealready here. Hell no, they care about who they attract to their town and want to keep their cities from going ghettoland. Middletown leaders don't care. Some don't live here anyway.

GG, If you invite poor people into the community by supplying them with a Section 8 voucher program, you are acting like a magnet for poverty. Analogy time......if you put raw meat out in you back yard, expect the wolves to show up soon. If this was such a great idea, why have so many towns around here not adopted the program? Why no cities taking their fair share of vouchers? Why did Middletown take 1662 when the correct amount, based on town size/population was around 700 or so? Because Mr. Kohler is a friggin idiot and the city council (at the time this was ocuring) didn’t even realize that they were in charge of the housing agency. I can see no benefit to this city whatsoever by inviting an overabundance of poor here as well as catering to the poor that were here all along. It is not a healthy thing for this city to have such a high concentration in one town. JMO Again, I AGREE WITH YOU…. I just wanted to make sure that the facts of the situation were out there. There is no doubt in my mind that, at the time that this occurred, the city just wanted 10% of the cut. The current leadership does not support the increase in vouchers and should not be blamed.

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. Were there some folks that moved to Middletown to get on a shorter list…..probably. 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 The info. you provided can be left to interpretation. Strong evidence? Not so certain as I am reading some ambiguity in the article. You have issues also with this statement..... "Were there some folks that moved to Middletown to get on a shorter list…..probably". Also disagree with your statement "Does that equate to Middletown becoming a magnate for the poor…absolutely not"- really? why not? I find it quite logical that if you set the town up for attracting the poor, you get a response from the poor. Stereotypically, they will flock to gov. programs. And what would a concentration of this segment of society do to the town receiving them? The typical things....crime, clutter, downgrading the image of the city, undesirable outside influences connected with this influence. Don't see Springboro or Mason doing the Section 8 ride, do you? Hell no, they care about who they attract to their town and want to keep their cities from going ghettoland. Middletown leaders don't care. Some don't live here anyway. GG, If you invite poor people into the community by supplying them with a Section 8 voucher program, you are acting like a magnet for poverty. Analogy time......if you put raw meat out in you back yard, expect the wolves to show up soon. If this was such a great idea, why have so many towns around here not adopted the program? Why no cities taking their fair share of vouchers? Why did Middletown take 1662 when the correct amount, based on town size/population was around 700 or so? I can see no benefit to this city whatsoever by inviting an overabundance of poor here as well as catering to the poor that were here all along. It is not a healthy thing for this city to have such a high concentration in one town. JMO

Mike

grey- prove to me that the vast, vast, vast majority of recipients were already in Middletown. Show me some numbers. I haven't seen the breakout of program recipients and where they originated from, be it in town or out of town. All I have heard is that the program has attracted everyone in the Miami Valley here for a handout. Following, is the proof that you requested. It is located in the last paragraph of the third page of a letter written by Shawn Sweet, who was the Acting Director of the Cleveland Hub Office of Public Housing. The letter is dated July 16, 2010 and is in response to a city prepared report that suggested making changes to the Housing Choice Voucher program.

THE REFERENCE PORTION OF THE ARTICLE YOU HAVE SUPPLIED DOESN'T GIVE NUMBERS. SINCE IT DOESN'T MENTION THE OVERALL NUMBERS WE CAN'T ESTABLISH IF IT IS A MAJORITY. JUST SAYS MIDDLETOWN CITIZENS BEFORE THEY WERE GIVEN VOUCHERS. FOR HOW LONG? DID THEY JUST ARRIVE IN TOWN? WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THE DETERMINATION THEY WERE CITIZENS?....CAME TO TOWN, RENTED A ROOM, ESTABLISHED A RESIDENCE JUST TO QUALIFY FOR A VOUCHER? WHERE DID THESE PEOPLE COME FROM, HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN TOWN AND WHEN DID THEY ESTABLISH THEMSELVES AS MIDDLETONIANS? TOO EASY FINDING OUT MIDDLETOWN IS GIVING OUT FREEBIE VOUCHERS BY JUST MOVING HERE AND RENTING OUT A ROOM, CALLING YOURSELF A RESIDENT OF THE CITY. IT ALSO STATES THAT MIDDLETOWN HAS A "LOCALITY PREFERENCE" INFERRING THAT THEY COULD ALSO CONSIDER OUTSIDERS. DOES NOT SAY A LOCALITY RULE OR INSISTANCE. CAN'T ELDERLY AND DISABLED COME FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY TOO? BOTTOM LINE....IT IS A DRAWING MAGNET FOR EVERY TOM, DICK OR HARRY TO COME TO TOWN LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT AND HELPING DRAG THE CITY DEEPER INTO GHETTOLAND. THE PROGRAM NEEDS TO GO FOR THE HEALTH OF THE CITY. JMO

greygoose:

Viet Vet,
PROPERTY VALUES HAVE DROPPED 8 PERCENT AND THERE ARE 3000 VACANT HOMES.....AND THE CITY HAS ADDED TO THE CARNAGE BY WELCOMING ANY AND ALL SECTION 8 VOUCHER PEOPLE, MAXING OUT THE VOUCHER NUMBERS. NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF CITY LEADERS. This is a very misleading statement. Although city learship really screwed up by increasing the Section 8 recipients by approximately 1,000 vouchers, it has nothing to do with current leadership. This was done by prior leadership and it is “CLEAR” that the city does not want to expand the program. In fact, they want to reduce it but HUD won’t let them

grey- show me in this statement where I referred to CURRENT leadership? I referenced "the city" and "city leaders". This could include past as well as present. It is written with no time frame. YOU are the one who interjected the word "current"

greygoose:

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE ON SECTION 8 ARE PAID ON THEIR JOBS? (IF THEY HAVE ONE AT ALL) MORE TOWARDS MINIMUM WAGE, RIGHT? IF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE BRINGING INTO TOWN HAVE LOW WAGE JOBS, THEY WILL NEVER BY ABLE TO PURCHASE THE VACANT HOUSING STOCK IN TOWN, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, RIGHT? Again, your statement is misleading. The city did not bring low wage earners into town with the Section 8 expansion. The vast, vast, vast, majority of recipients were “already” Middletown residents. The problem is that once you get it, you can't get rid of it

grey- prove to me that the vast, vast, vast majority of recipients were already in Middletown. Show me some numbers. I haven't seen the breakout of program recipients and where they originated from, be it in town or out of town. All I have heard is that the program has attracted everyone in the Miami Valley here for a handout.

grey-

THEN WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THESE PEOPLE BEING HERE (OTHER THAN BRINGING IN FED MONEY) IF THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO TAKE HANDOUTS AND NEVER CONTRIBUTE BY MAKING ENOUGH TO EVENTUALLY BUY A HOUSE? WHY TRASH THE TOWN UP WITH LOW INCOME...HAS NO UPSIDE. IF IT WERE A GOOD THING, OTHER CITIES WOULD BE DOING IT.
I agree with you…. You can thank Mr. Kohler back in the days when the city council didn’t even realize that they were in charge of the Middletown Public Housing Agency. Mr. Kohler thought that getting 10% of $1,000,000.00 a month in subsidies was a good thing. The city now realizes that the costs of the program outweigh the benefits. The problem is that its too late to get rid of it. Let's be fair and put the blame where it belongs


Alright, let's blame Marty Kohler for his backdoor tactics with city council. He is part of the administration and reports to Gilleland. As city manager, she is reponsible for her people. If Kohler knew that the council had a need to know they were in charge of the Midd. Public Housing Agency, Gilleland should have known it too. It should have been communicated to council from the start. It all goes back to placing the blame (again) on the people running this dam city. Lebanon had the right idea.....fired his carcass. This city should do the same.

Pacman,

1. The hoarding (and hiding) of money in slush funds, only to have it miraculously be "found" when it is needed for the "right" uses, while we are always broke (or a tax increase is the only answer) when it comes to the "wrong" uses.
2. The prioritization of the purposes of municipal government, vis-a-vis: streets, public safety, business retention, sewers and other infrastructure, public support of private enterprises, the establishment of monopolies in private business areas by City actions, decorative sidewalk lights, and demolition, etc.

All I know is the Middletown of 2012 looks nothing like the town I grew up in. And that's a real shame.

"The city is also in the midst of an ongoing federal investigation of several landlords who were in the Section 8 program. Adkins said three to four landlords have been removed from the Section 8 program for fraud.
"