Thursday, September 3, 2009

Knox Hill 1: Slumlords/Bikers ZERO!!!!!

The Knox Hill Neighborhood Association, with the help of the city, and a demolition contractor, sent a strong and clear message to the slumlords and the "Ruthless Riders" Motorcycle club "No more will this neighborhood sit back and allow business as usual"

For me personally, it is a 'bittersweet" victory, I would have loved to see that building restored, it was the last mixed use building in the neighborhood. BUT we tried, we found someone willing to spend the 150,000 to restore it but in the end the owner wouldn't respond. We win, we lose.

But most importantly we have sent a message. You can't ignore the law, you can't ignor zoning and permits. If you want to be in this neighborhood, there are rules and you have to follow them or there are consequences.

The establishment of a motorcycle club in our neighborhood would have been a major step backwards for the neighborhood and in this one case a vacant lot, in this case, is far better than the alternative.

The neighborhood owes a big thanks to Ed Cunningham at city building inspections for 'fast tracking' this and sparing the neighborhood of a problem that would have festered and held back neighborhood development for years.
I received several calls and emails last night from area residents thanking the Knox Hill Neighborhood Association for standing up and leading the neighborhood fight on this. It is great to know we have the overwhelming support of the area residents. We are a stronger neighborhood because of this and good times are ahead! We already have several houses , under a VBML or slated for impending demo, on track for restoration. More importantly the city seems to understand now that this neighborhood has value and can be an asset to the city.

I will miss the building but I won't miss the "fine upstanding" individuals that would have occupied it and caused problems in the neighborhood for years to come!


Paul Wilham said...

The Cincinnati Enquirer was kind enough to print a story about this:

UCstudent said...

I really don't disagree with you at all, but I never thought I'd hear you give any approval of the destruction of historic properties, especially ones that are more than save-able. I guess mixed-use buildings don't have a place in a rehabbed Knox Hill. Didn't mean to bust your balls, I like what you're doing and I think you're going about it the right way.

Paul Wilham said...

It wasn't a question of advocating the tear down. The only thing that prevented it from being torn down a month or so ago was the fact we were trying to find a buyer, who was aware of the situation, willing to write an offer to purchase, with a hold harmless clause, and willing to put in writing her plans for the building which would have been a asset to the neighborhood.

But when the owner won't respond to a written offer or answer his phone there finally reaches a point whre there are no options left.

One of the reasons I am for receivership or a city land bank, is the owners who wont fix their property, they wont sell, they wont respond period. Thye dont care if its torn own or not because they have already milked it and will lose the property to back taxes anyway. Recieveship in which the city stabilizes a property like this makes sense. BUT we arent there yet.