Proposal to make Huntington nicer/more attractive

[RhinoD]

Hey political folks... I realize I almost never post in this forum, because I dont really care much about arguing politics... But after spending 5 days in Huntington last week an idea came to me, and I'd like some feedback.

So as I was driving around looking at properties to potentially buy, I noticed literally hundreds of properties that should be condemned and removed. Maybe they were previously burned out, long ago abandoned, or boarded up for some other reason, but there are a ton of eye sore shithole properties in town. Properties that are so terrible that they are a public safety hazard and a certain nuisance to adjacent property owners.

Does Huntington not have a means to remedy such properties? - Im guessing not since some have been in shambles for years. And if not, why?... An open vacant lot would be more attractive to a potential buyer/developer than a house that half burned in 2021... And even if the lot isn't sold immediately, an open green lot is much better looking than said building.

My proposal would be to introduce a SPLOST (special local option sales tax) one quarter of a cent, to put money into a fund for property remediation. Collect the SPLOST for a year while a list of said properties is developed and then get to work on the list. Inform the property owner that their property is on the list, they can either clean it up themselves by a set deadline, or the city will do it and foreclose the lot (for later sale) to recoup the cost of the demolition/debris removal.

I think we could spur development, and make the city a lot more attractive in the process, if we tore down about 200 buildings over the next 4-5 years.

Any thoughts?

 

[MichiganHerd]

Thoughts? Yes

Those properties you're calling to be condemned are actually future low cost housing units the Hank Fitler will be fixing up. These things don't happen overnight, but I do know Mr. Fitler has plans in place for these shacks.

 

[greengeezer]

The more Huntington real estate that Marshall takes over, the better.

 

[big_country90]

Thoughts? Yes

Those properties you're calling to be condemned are actually future low cost housing units the Hank Fitler will be fixing up. These things don't happen overnight, but I do know Mr. Fitler has plans in place for these shacks.

Hank just tore another one down, actually. I was over there a couple hours ago. Building a very nice double unit in its place.

 

[extragreen]

Lot Nazis^^^^

 

[extragreen]

Thoughts? Yes

Those properties you're calling to be condemned are actually future low cost housing units the Hank Fitler will be fixing up. These things don't happen overnight, but I do know Mr. Fitler has plans in place for these shacks.

sign here, coward >>>> ________________________ 🐔 🐔 🐔 🐔 I DON'T SEE THE COWARD'S SIGNATURE​

extragreen signature>>>> extragreen​

 

[MichiganHerd]

Hank just tore another one down, actually. I was over there a couple hours ago. Building a very nice double unit in its place.

I had actually read about that, which is why I brought up the good work Hank is putting in for his community. I wanted to make sure Rhino was aware that there's still decent people doing the Lords work in Huntington, as well as letting others know that may have read access only to this forum.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Hey political folks... I realize I almost never post in this forum, because I dont really care much about arguing politics... But after spending 5 days in Huntington last week an idea came to me, and I'd like some feedback.

So as I was driving around looking at properties to potentially buy, I noticed literally hundreds of properties that should be condemned and removed. Maybe they were previously burned out, long ago abandoned, or boarded up for some other reason, but there are a ton of eye sore shithole properties in town. Properties that are so terrible that they are a public safety hazard and a certain nuisance to adjacent property owners.

Does Huntington not have a means to remedy such properties? - Im guessing not since some have been in shambles for years. And if not, why?... An open vacant lot would be more attractive to a potential buyer/developer than a house that half burned in 2021... And even if the lot isn't sold immediately, an open green lot is much better looking than said building.

My proposal would be to introduce a SPLOST (special local option sales tax) one quarter of a cent, to put money into a fund for property remediation. Collect the SPLOST for a year while a list of said properties is developed and then get to work on the list. Inform the property owner that their property is on the list, they can either clean it up themselves by a set deadline, or the city will do it and foreclose the lot (for later sale) to recoup the cost of the demolition/debris removal.

I think we could spur development, and make the city a lot more attractive in the process, if we tore down about 200 buildings over the next 4-5 years.

Any thoughts?

Cant you just buy the eroding properties and tear them down and build?

 

[extragreen]

I had actually read about that, which is why I brought up the good work Hank is putting in for his community. I wanted to make sure Rhino was aware that there's still decent people doing the Lords work in Huntington, as well as letting others know that may have read access only to this forum.

sign here, coward >>>> ________________________ 🐔 🐔 🐔 🐔 I DON'T SEE THE COWARD'S SIGNATURE​

extragreen signature>>>> extragreen​

 

[MrHerd05]

Hey political folks... I realize I almost never post in this forum, because I dont really care much about arguing politics... But after spending 5 days in Huntington last week an idea came to me, and I'd like some feedback.

So as I was driving around looking at properties to potentially buy, I noticed literally hundreds of properties that should be condemned and removed. Maybe they were previously burned out, long ago abandoned, or boarded up for some other reason, but there are a ton of eye sore shithole properties in town. Properties that are so terrible that they are a public safety hazard and a certain nuisance to adjacent property owners.

Does Huntington not have a means to remedy such properties? - Im guessing not since some have been in shambles for years. And if not, why?... An open vacant lot would be more attractive to a potential buyer/developer than a house that half burned in 2021... And even if the lot isn't sold immediately, an open green lot is much better looking than said building.

My proposal would be to introduce a SPLOST (special local option sales tax) one quarter of a cent, to put money into a fund for property remediation. Collect the SPLOST for a year while a list of said properties is developed and then get to work on the list. Inform the property owner that their property is on the list, they can either clean it up themselves by a set deadline, or the city will do it and foreclose the lot (for later sale) to recoup the cost of the demolition/debris removal.

I think we could spur development, and make the city a lot more attractive in the process, if we tore down about 200 buildings over the next 4-5 years.

Any thoughts?

I know some folks who are doing some of these things around town.

Yell at me sometime

 

[RhinoD]

Cant you just buy the eroding properties and tear them down and build?

Potentially, but that comes with a few issues.

First, a lot of these properties aren't for sale currently (for whatever reason, IDK) which is why they would need to be condemned by the municipality... Second, buying a lot with a building on it and having to pay to tear the building down is an expense a lot of developers won't take on. I'm personally not a big company, Im one guy (my retired father and I do as much of the work as we can and subcontract electrical/HVAC). If I can buy a usuable structure and gut and remodel, that's option one. Buying a vacant lot and building something from scratch is option two. Buying a property, doing tear down, and then building on the lot would be a very distant option three.

 

[extragreen]

Yell at me sometime

YOU'RE MARRIED TO MARK SNYDER!!!!!

you're welcome!!

 

[MStap]

The city need to make getting rid of dilapidated structures a high priority. The city had been doing a good job in recent years of catching up the backlog of unsafe structures, and hopefully they pick it back up and allocated more of the budget toward getting those places knocked down.

The problem with most of the houses that are too far gone to remediate is that they are in less desirable neighborhoods and the demolition cost is more than the vacant lot is worth. It doesn't make financial sense to spend $15k or so to tear down a dilapidated house and have a lot worth $10k. That doesn't even take into account if someone is trying to buy from an owner of the property who is going to want some money to sell.