Good news for the Highland area?
June 13th, 2006 by GoldenAppleCorp
I just read this link in the Oak Ridger. From what I gather, it allows a city to inspect rental properties in residential areas set up by the government. More or less.
The article says the bill allows the city to check for code violations, deterioration and other similar problems, but I read nowhere on there about the city being allowed to do anything other than just look. Perhaps I missed it. It’s been a long day.
It would be wonderful if this bill (should it be signed in officially) could force absent slumlords to either clean up their acts or forfeit control of the premises. I’ve bitched before about how abominal that areas is and how those apartments are forcing people to sell their homes at a huge loss. It’s unsafe in that area, it’s a eyesore and there is no way in hell those places are up to code.
Every time I talk to someone about the apartments, they tell me they’ll never get fixed because it’s a political issue, but none of them ever adequately explain how it’s political. Can one of you fine folks tell me why those buildings are allowed to stand in the state they’re in?
June 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I can try GAC. It is a political issue because there are people living in those wretched looking buildings.
Several months ago I attended a couple of the three meetings that the city held for the folks that live in the development zone. I went with the preconceived notion that Applewood should be bulldozed that evening, until I heard a young woman get up and address the crowd. This young woman was 18 or 19 years old and had two kids, no husband and no job. With tears in her eyes she “begged†the city officials in attendance not to tear down the only place in Oak Ridge that she could afford to live.
To some of you, I may usually come across as a heartless mean spirited conservative, but hearing the pain in that young woman’s voice put a lump in my throat.
All that being said, those apartments still need to go away, but the political issue comes into play when you start to discuss what will happen to the folks living there and what is the city’s responsibility to them. I don’t know that answer to either of those problems.
June 13th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Daco covered the political side of it very well. There are people living in those wreched buildings who need to be accomodated somewhere — hopefully somewhere considerably safer. Oak Ridge does have other subsidized housing that is much nicer, and it may be that the City will have to look closely at eligibility: are there people living in some of the safer dwellings that really could be moving on?
The proposed landlord ordinace that failed to gain approval in the legislature would have been good, because landlords would have had a financial interest in evicting (or just not renting to) criminals, freeing up some space for people truly in need with some hope of improving their circumstances over time.
The other part of the problem is more of a financial one; I think I remember that there’s a lot of asbestos in those buildings. Tearing them down is going to be costly because of the safety precautions required during demolition, along with hazardous waste disposal. As bad as it is, it needs to happen soon — every day that the young woman and her babies spend in that hazardous dump is a risk to their very lives.
Once the neighborhood begins to improve, it’s likely that positive changes will spread — even just little things. That’s good for property values, but also good for quality of life for the people who live there.
June 13th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Doesn’t the city enforce the outward appearance of those places? New paint would help the eyesore, a temporary fix, yes. I guess the city or whoever doesn’t want to spend the cash if they will eventuallly tear them down. In comparison, I’m really impressed with how some of the duplexes on W. Outer have been renovated, most all of them once looked similar to applewood.
June 13th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Nice post, daco.
In University City, MO, where we’ve lived for most of the past 24 years, all dwellings, apartments and houses, must be inspected every time the residents change. The inspections are pretty strict. As a home owner, I have a better appreciation of the value of this than I did as a renter. The result has been that the rental housing in U City, even the cheapest, seems to be maintained in a better condition (and the neighborhoods comensurately safer) than comparable St. Louis City neighborhoods a couple of miles away.
I think subsidizing housing for the poor is a better idea than allowing them to live in slums.
June 13th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
“I think subsidizing housing for the poor is a better idea than allowing them to live in slums.”
The “Barry Goldwater” in me would like to disagree, but I believe the fact is that subsidized housing, depending on the circumstances, can be a huge win for the tenant, the neighborhood (home owners) and the city.
Frankly I would vote to float a bond to improve the Applewood neighborhood by building subsidized housing rather than watch that area continue to fall farther into disrepair. The drug dealers would love for us to do nothing.
The real thing that scares me about any newly available property in the city is the potential for the city (taxpayers) to make an investment only to help make a developer turn more of a profit.
June 13th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Ok, I was under the impression that the landlord had some pull with the city or something… that’s how a few people made it sound to me, at least.
I don’t doubt that these apartments are the best that some of the tenants can get. For two years, AT and I lived in gov. subsidized housing, paying only $10/mo. That was all we could afford at the time.
I think that a best case scenario would be if we could somehow go through all the apartments, putting those that qualify on wait-lists for affordable housing, whether it’s gov-subsidized or not. Once everyone had been placed, then we could deal with the buildings. If necessary, the city could even consider putting some gov. subsidized housing on the land. Just about anything would be better than what’s there currently.
Driving by those apartments, I can’t help but notice that there are several nice cars and trucks outside. I also see a lot of construction-type vehicles. I get the feeling that some people are just living there while they’re in the area, doing on-site work.
Also, I’m not typically in favor of band-aid solutions, but like mojo said, a paint job would do a hell of a lot in making that place look better.
June 13th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Yeah, as much as I hate seeing people down on their luck (and role reversals between me and you, Daco), that lady with the two kids has other options.
June 13th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I know that you are right AT. She has options, but she is in a situation that has got to be terrifying to her. She doesn’t realize it yet, but she will probably be much better off when she is outta there.
GAC, I doubt seriously if that landlord has as much pull with the city as you do. The guy is a dirtbag.
Here’s and idea..hows about you guys giving FEMA a ring? I understand they have a few camper trailers that they aren’t using right now.