At last week's meeting of Cincinnati City Council's Vibrant Neighborhood Committee, Councilmember and committee chair Roxanne Qualls said that the City administration has no objection to looking at changes that could stem the high number of emergency demolitions in Over-the-Rhine and help protect the hundreds of currently endangered historic buildings.
Over the summer, a group composed of members of the Over-the-Rhine Foundation (OTRF), Cincinnati Preservation Association, and the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood made three presentations to the committee outlining what the loss of more buildings would mean to the City, what policies are enabling the frequent demolitions, and a specific set of more than 30 recommendations that could slow down or stop them.
And while a July report seemed to indicate that the City was hesitant about making changes to its building code and funding a possible receivership program – what OTRF executive director Mike Morgan called a "status quo" approach – Property Maintenance Code Enforcement (PMCE) division manager Ed Cunningham, speaking on behalf of the Department of Community Development, told the committee that that wasn't the case.
"I really don't think we're as far apart as the reply might indicate," he said. "The good news is that I think that we all want the same thing, and that's to preserve the historic character of our city. It's just a matter of working on these ideas a little more and trying to come up with the best ones that can be implemented."
Morgan agreed.
Since the report, Morgan said that he and Cunningham have had many "positive conversations" about proposed changes.
"I think it's important that we move forward, and that we define how do we accomplish these things," he said.
Still on the table
Cunningham said that not making changes to the code from time to time to address new realities would be unusual, and that all of the recommended code changes were still on the table.
However, his main concern is that his department is not handcuffed by code changes that would keep it from abating potentially hazardous situations.
"We do not, in any of these recommendations, want to create a situation where we are creating actual peril anywhere," Morgan said. "We just want to make sure that we're not getting to that point of peril as frequently, and that emergencies are actually emergencies and that we're intervening in a more productive way."
Another concern is the Vacated Building Maintenance License (VBML), which made its way into the municipal code during Qualls' first stint on council from 1991 to 1999.
Qualls said that it would be worth looking at the VBML's effectiveness, and if it may need to be tweaked.
"I don't think that people anticipated some of the consequences of that particular ordinance," she said. "The intent was to discourage the type of mothballing of buildings. It was not designed to inhibit the renovation and rehabilitation of buildings, nor to penalize people trying to do it."
Receptive
A proposal for receivership – a process in which a judge appoints a non-profit receiver to bring a building up to code, then offers it back to the owner for the cost of repairs or offers it for sale to a third-party – was found to be problematic in the July report due to the City's budget problems.
Still, Cunningham sees merit in the idea.
"Unfortunately, we're not in a real good position right now to fund any new programs," he said. "I think it's an excellent tool. It's an underutilized tool, and, in some cases, it's the best tool to address a historic property."
But Morgan said that his group is looking into other funding options. It has submitted a request for $2.8 million in federal stimulus funding, an application that has been supported by a council resolution, PMCE, and, most importantly, State Senator Eric Kearney (D-9th).
Morgan said that his fingers are crossed that the receivership program will be funded, because economic analyses have shown that the $2.8 million could provide a $20 million boost to the local economy and create more than 530 jobs.
"I hope in our City that everyone keeps their fingers crossed, because it would be an opportunity to do a significant difference, and to do the things that I think we all recognize would be a very positive change to the neighborhood with no expenditure of City money at all," Morgan said.
City as surety
Councilmember Chris Monzel asked specifically about how much money might be needed for a proposed loan program, which could help third parties acquire properties that have fallen into receivership.
Morgan explained that the program could operate at little or no cost to the City, with the City acting as a surety for an appraisal gap between what a bank would finance and what amount of money it would take to purchase the building.
City expenditures, if any, would go to support, staff, and training.
"I'm hopeful that if we put the right kind of partnership together, we can also find private money or possible grant funding for the purpose of administering those programs," Morgan said.
Moving forward
Qualls currently is circulating a motion that would appoint a task force consisting of two subcommittees to further study the recommendations, with a vote expected within the next couple of weeks.
Councilmember Cecil Thomas already has made known his support for the motion and sees the value in the appointment of subcommittees.
"I think this is a good start," he said. "I'm very supportive of it, and I'm looking forward to getting feedback from the committees that will allow us to make an informed decision."
Danny Klingler, Over-the-Rhine resident, urban planner, and trustee for OTRF, hopes that the process doesn't take too long.
"I just want to encourage, if possible, that we act with all due speed on this because, as you've heard today, we do encounter those emergency situations," Klingler said. "And, in fact, it came to our awareness just yesterday that yet another one is going to be taken down, probably within the next two, three days...maybe a week."
Previous reading on BC:
Dohoney: Most OTRF preservation recommendations 'probably unfeasible' (8/5/09)
Morgan, OTR group propose changes to City code enforcement (7/21/09)
Group petitioning council to stop Over-the-Rhine demolitions (6/10/09)
bockfest is coming up
1 hour ago
6 comments:
These ideas and propsals are al "positive steps' for the Preservation community and the city.
I am a big fan of OTR but OTR is not the only neighborhood negatively impacted by demolitions. North and South Fairmount, Price Hill, Sedamsville and Avondale are being demolished at a rate which will render those neighborhoods not viable in a few short years. You now have blocks in Fairmount , blocks that once had 30 houses on them with ONE house!
I think we all know that the VBML system is broken, good intentioned, but not well thought out as it discourages restoration with more redtape and expense.
I think Ed Cunningham understands the "value' in historic neighborhoods not only from a city turnaround but as part of quality of life. I am not sure this city council 'gets it". Cincinnati's historic neighborhoods are this citys "ace in the hole" in a competitive market to atrract new business.
It REQUIRES investment in infrastructure and staff but one think I know, spending 15-20K to take down a building generates NO tax revenue and trades a problem property for a problem vacant lot.
One only need to look at Detroit to see that the "Blight=Bulldozer" mentality has brought that city to its knees. We should not make the same mistake.
It is good news to hear that City officials and local historic preservation leaders are talking. So long as communications are on-going, there's a chance to make some progress. It still amazes me that the City constantly cites budgetary constraints as an impediment to trying a different approach: "Unfortunately, we're not in a real good position right now to fund any new programs," he (Mr. Cunnigham)said. "I think it's an excellent tool. It's an underutilized tool, and, in some cases, it's the best tool to address a historic property." Yet, the City's demolition budget seems to be unlimited and appears to be constantly expanding as funds from other programs get diverted and applied to demolition contracts. The harsh reality is that the City very rarely obtains any payment from the property owner for the demolition costs and at most can only obtain a lien on a nearly worthless vacant lot. To come back and state the status quo (demolition) is the most cost effective approach to non-compliance is an insult to common sense. Carried to an extreme, this deliberate obliteration policy will cause a number of historic neighborhoods to disappear in coming years-Cincinnati's future potential will be compromised as a result. That is, unless Cincinnati wants to look like the next Detroit.
The City and the OTR Foundation are "not far apart"? Wow, that is a terribly misleading characterization of the current state of affairs.
Consider this from the OTR Foundation's reply to the Vibrant Neighborhood Committee's response to their initial proposals:
"Conversely, the Administration's response to our recommendations may best be characterized as: '[Categorically opposing any modifications]' because 'there is a mechanism already in place' and the City already 'makes the best use of limited staffing resources'. The Administration appears to take a position that any and every change to the Code is an insurmountable obstacle that will inexplicably threaten public safety. Some recommendations are dismissed because they would require staff time. Others are dismissed because they would cost money. And recommendations that would actually generate revenue are dismissed because somebody might find them 'contentious'. The Administration's response to our recommendations is most disappointing when it appears to have an almost visceral reaction to any challenge to the status quo. We can do better."
Sounds like they are worlds apart, if you ask me...
No one in the current administration understands historic preservation. It's going to be outsiders that swing the pendulum the other way, since local folk seem to be blind to the architectural beauty that surrounds them.
^ I'm well aware of that response...in fact, I have a copy of it right here.
Many meetings and conversations between preservationists and City staff occurred between the time of OTRF's response and this article, and even more since then. Believe me, if you have both Morgan and Cunningham saying that they're not that far apart, then they have cleared up a lot of misunderstandings and are now making some progress.
Unless you believe both are lying?
Kevin-
No, I'm not accusing anyone of lying. I wasn't aware of any further communication beyond what is posted at City Council's repository.
However, that doesn't mean that the city suddenly magically understands the importance of historic preservation. There isn't a single member of the current administration -- or Cervay/Cunningham's groups -- that really get it.
If Cincinnati can't get historic preservation "right" in Over-the-Rhine, it won't get it right anywhere. The area is practically serving itself up on open palms saying "Here I am. Make it happen." -- and Qualls and the Vibrant Neighborhoods committee are clueless.
Kevin, I think its great that Morgan and Cunningham are saying that they are not that far apart. In fact, I think Ed "gets' what preservation and changes can mean and he appreciates the value in Historic Architecture.
Having said that, no amount of agreement between the two of them will change anything. Two things have to happen.
One, the city has to actually follow its own municipal code (they dont have the staff)and people "higher up" in city government won't let that happen.
Two, changes must be made to the municipal code.
That means the city manager has to 'sign off' on it, HE WON"T and the Council has to change the code THEY WON'T.
If you really want to change anything regarding demolitions there is only one way at this point. Seek a Federal Level Audit investigation into the way the city spends its CDBG and other federal monies, the sloppy way nuisance hearings are conducted and the way city Contractors are selected to do demos and their relationship to certain city officials.
In Short Cut off the Federal Money flow off to this city for demolitions and do not give back to the city until they have a code that works and is evenly enforced, safeguards on notification process on nuisance hearings, and real oversite as to how contracts are awarded.
Short of that happening, the preservation community and OTR are kidding themselves.
It is time to play Hardball.
Post a Comment