900 Baltimore Ave.

[smh]

Also just received this email from Deb Hermann's office:

This demolition is on hold.

Thank you,

Terri Wolfe, Administrative Assistant
to Councilwoman Deb Hermann
1st District At-Large
513-1624

Not entirely sure what this means...

[lock+load]

Was the little garage on 9th torn down?

[KCMax]

Toellner Tells It

Here's an idea. Tax abandoned buildings differently than those that are occupied. All buildings in the city require a certain amount of public infastructure to support. But abandoned buildings don't generate the same type of tax revenue that inhabited ones do. Inhabited buildings have residents who buy taxable items and earn taxable salaries. Commercial spaces generate sales tax revenue, or have workers in them who buy lunches out, or generate income tax revenue.

Abandoned buildings cost the city money. So let's tax them that way. If a building is sitting empty, it should get taxed at a higher rate than one that is at full occupancy. This will encourage people to to fill up empty store fronts or apartments by lowering rents. It will help incent people to DO SOMETHING with their buildings vs incenting them to do nothing and allowing the building to fall in dis-repair.

It is my understanding that Iowa City, IA has such a policy (I can't find how the bylaw is written and thus can't verify this, but it's where I got the idea) and there are almost no empty store-fronts or apartments in Iowa City -- because people are not incentivized to just sit on empty, rotting buildings.

And this kinda gets back to Bahua's land tax argument. We actually tax MORE if you improve upon the lot under our current system.

[mean]

Toellner Tells It

And this kinda gets back to Bahua's land tax argument. We actually tax MORE if you improve upon the lot under our current system.

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous, but when your municipal codes essentially punish people for renovating and improving their property, and reward them for letting it rot... well, you get downtown KC.

[smh]

Very interesting update from Russ Johnson's office. I'm still trying to parse out exactly what it means going forward:

I spoke with Russ and got a report on this issue from City staff. While we understand and appreciate your concerns, the building is posing a clear and present danger to public safety. Recently an individual who was walking along a sidewalk was killed in KC due to a building collapse. If that would happen in this case, in addition to the inherent tragedy involved, now that the City is aware of the danger, the City would face potentially millions of dollars in liability for not taking action.

Below is a staff report on the building:

There have been several questions raised about the demolition of 900 Baltimore, also known as “The Cosby Hotel”. We thought it would be helpful to clarify the City’s involvement, responsibility and position.

On June 30, 2010 Neighborhood Preservation, Dangerous Buildings section, received a complaint that 900 Baltimore was open to entry. The property was inspected and found secure.

While performing the inspection the inspector noticed the overall condition of the building appeared structurally unsound. The inspector was contacted by building ownership and advised they had performed an inspection of the property earlier in the week.

An interior inspection was performed and the extent of the deterioration of the building was extensive. The property management company advised us that their engineer reported the building as unsafe.

The inspector reported this information to his supervisor. On July 1, 2010 the Manager of Neighborhood Preservation, Director, and Assistant to the Director performed an exterior inspection. It appeared the building had not been maintained which resulted in significant movement along the south wall. Mike Schumacher contacted the owner Mr. Rick Powell, whose office is across the street from 900 Baltimore. Mr. Powell advised an engineer and other contractors had inspected the building on June 28, 2010. It was their opinion; the building was going to collapse.

Mr. Schumacher advised him we agreed with that assessment and he needed to demolish the building. Mr. Powell advised he does not have the funds to demolish the building. He also explained it is our duty to tear the building down, in the interest to the public safety. Mr. Powell advised he had received bids to stabilize the building, as well as demolish it. He further advised he could not afford either option.

Mike Schumacher explained to Mr. Powell that building demolitions is not a service we provide property owner, but a measure taken when property owners fail to comply with City Codes. He advised he knew the process.

On July 1, 2010 we conducted an interior inspection with demolition contractors. During this inspection staff found significant deterioration to the foundation along the west side of the building, several areas which had been blocked off where the flooring had decayed past the point of repair. There was severe water damage inside the building which had damaged the interior wall and the brick which formed the exterior wall. It appeared the southwest corner of the building had settled several inches which resulted in separation of the brick on the third floor. It was clear this building was beyond repair and emergency demolition was required. During this inspection we also obtained an engineering report which stated the building is going to fail.

After obtaining bids Mr. Schumacher again contacted Mr. Powell and advised him of the cost. He again asked him to assume his responsibility and he declined. Mr. Powell advised he has six million in tax credits which could be impacted. He also mentioned his desire for a TIF amendment. Mr. Schumacher explained our displeasure with the position he placed the city in. He advised “It is your job”.

This case appears to be an older building which was not maintained. While the owner has refused to comply with the emergency demolition order and understands he will face further legal actions, in an e-mail dated July 8, 2010, he stated "We recognize our obligation to reimburse you for the cost of the work and your administrative fees upon completion. It is our intent to do so promptly in a manner that will satisfy you and your contractors."

It is our opinion the building falls under section 56-540 as an Emergency Demolition.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions.

Traci Gleason
Director of Policy & Oversight
Office of Councilman Russ Johnson

22nd Floor, City Hall
414 East 12th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
816-513-1622

[DaveKCMO]

so... what is the cost difference between demolition and keeping it from collapsing? anyone?

[LenexatoKCMO]

Seems like it would be a good idea to amend the city and state laws to provide that in addition to the city having a duty to step in to demolish a dangerous building when the owner is indigent or unwilling to do so, the city could instead elect to stabilize the building and take a lien on the property. 

[PumpkinStalker]

Mr. Powell sounds like a real asshole.  I can't believe be told the city that their job is to demolish a building they see dangerous when he should not have owned a property he can't keep up.

What else does this sleaze own?

When they tore down the Alarm Exchange building on hospital hill crews chiseled all the mortar off the old bricks and neatly stacked the brick on pallets to be reused.  Hopefully this is given the same consideration since it appears the demo will happen.

Seems like it would be a good idea to amend the city and state laws to provide that in addition to the city having a duty to step in to demolish a dangerous building when the owner is indigent or unwilling to do so, the city could instead elect to stabilize the building and take a lien on the property. 

Great idea.

[dangerboy]

Very interesting update from Russ Johnson's office. I'm still trying to parse out exactly what it means going forward:

City staff is acknowledging that the owner has allowed the building to deteriorate to its present condition.  They also tried to use his tax credits as leverage to get him to act.  The owner saying "go head and tear it down and try to bill me for it"

[KCMax]

It sounds like property owners have every incentive to let old buildings rot. What an f-ed up policy.

I also approve of LenexatoKC's idea.

[FangKC]

Since it's the south and west walls that are failing, it seems to me that those are the less hazardous to the public since they don't face sidewalks.  Thus, fence off that area, and put in steel support braces to stabilize the building. Then have building foundation people fix that problem, dismantle the south and west walls completely, and rebuild them.

[Thaine]

Just surmising, but I wonder if the City could use its police power to stabilize and button up the building and bill the owner for it even if it cost a lot more than just scraping it?  Also, who would get to make that decision?

[dangerboy]

Just surmising, but I wonder if the City could use its police power to stabilize and button up the building and bill the owner for it even if it cost a lot more than just scraping it?  Also, who would get to make that decision?

Police power?

[LenexatoKCMO]

Police power?

He means in the ConLaw context - not the actual dudes with batons context. 

Taine, I would think the primary issue there is that as things are written the city would be likely to get stiffed for the very extensive costs - hence my suggestion of a provision for the city to get a lien. 

[dangerboy]

The city does have new legal powers to fix codes violations and place a lien on the property for repayment of the costs.  It's intended more for slumlords who don't mow the grass and such, but it might apply here.  I think in theory the city could stabilize the structure enough to bring it back into compliance with codes, bill the asshat for the work, and then seize the property if he doesn't pay.

I notice the Larue parcel is owned by a different LLC from the  Union Carbide parcel.  So this clown might be able to declare bankruptcy on the Cosby without impacting his other project.

[FangKC]

Developers often use different LLCs on individual buildings because of the financing and insurance liability mix involved.

[FangKC]

Let me direct you to his thread on our forum that demonstrates how just facade walls can be braced up for reuse.

http://forum.kcrag.com/http://www.kcrag ... 89#p215989

If they can keep those facades from falling down using braces and scaffolding, surely they can stabilize the Cosby Hotel until it can be repaired.

[FangKC]

Another past example of saving a "dangerous" historic building is the old industrial warehouse on the northeast corner of Second and Walnut streets in the River Market. It stood until very recently without a roof, and just standing walls, and it was renovated into office space.

[FangKC]

An additional example is the carriage house in the alley behind Blossum House at W. 11th and Pennsylvania. It was also rebuilt recently after standing without a roof or windows for many years. One of the walls had completely collapsed. Mrs. Shirley Helzberg saw that it was restored, when it would easily have been cheaper just to level it. The City didn't level it under emergency provisions even though it stood that way for years.

The carriage house near W. 11th and Pennsylvania before restoration.



It's been completely restored and will be rented as office space.

[kid a]

I just sent an email to mayor funk and council members about this. this is repulsive.
i will keep you all posted with the response. please keep us all updated fang if you hear anything.
you are one resourceful person!!