In our last episode, we were making quick progress on interior demolition and closer to reconstruction when the city stepped in to slam on the brakes.
Now some of it started with miscommunication about the permitting needed for demolition. But the Vacant Building Maintenance License (herein always abbreviated VBML) was something that I knew was coming when I bought the vacant building. I just didn't think they would jump on me so fast, given all of the other vacant buildings surrounding me being left alone. If only we got this service everywhere...
The previous owner was given the title "worst owner in OTR" and actually had the city trying to take his properties from out of his negligent hands. They came at him with all of their teeth, and failed to wrestle them from his grip using the law. Luckily he sold out before his negligence led to the need for demolition of his historic buildings. Mine was one of the better ones he had, but was squarely on the city's radar. In under a month after the transfer, they were on me for a VBML.
Now the VBML serves an important purpose - it requires you to meet 13 guidelines that ensure safety of these vacant buildings for the public and any first respondents (like fire fighters) that may need to enter. It makes sure the doors stay locked, windows boarded, and roof from leaking; among others. It also makes sure you have general liability insurance in case something happens.
Unfortunately, even though I had every intention of complying with the 13 guidelines (they are pretty common sense after all), I had gotten caught with my pants down after the Stop Work order, where I wasn't allowed to remove the last debris. So by the time the VBML inspector showed up, all that I could do was pile it up and make sure there were clear pathways for people to easily walk around. The inspector unsurprisingly said he preferred that it was gone entirely, but said he was ok with its current state given the circumstances. OK, cool. There were a few items to do (cover a few holes better and strengthen the railing) but generally it seemed that I was almost in compliance.
That's not all that comes with a VBML though... The city's stated goal is to encourage redevelopment by either #1 charging a hefty (and growing) annual fee as a vacant building tax or #2 giving a 2-year waiver if you can show a development plan. Sounds great right?
Except they mostly charge the VBML fee ($900 year 1 & growing an additional $900 higher each year after) to responsive owners. Deadbeats that don't respond are never held accountable or are grandfathered in. Remember all of the vacant buildings surrounding me that the city leaves alone... how many fees have they sucked out of them? Even when they are successful, the fees only ends up in the city's pocket and saps away resources that should be put back into these buildings instead. It's a broken system, but I have a suggestion below*.
The second option is the direction that inspectors point responsive owners and it sounds easy - just have a development plan (also pay the $130 application fee - that's not a penalty tho...) and you'll get a waiver to get us out of your hair for 2 years. The hard part is that they want a full development plan in 30 days. This is a little unreasonable given most contractors are too busy right now to even answer the phone for a small project and also good luck having financing secured in that time frame, especially when you just made the purchase and are still getting your own arms around the property.
Luckily my inspector said he'd help me out by giving me a little longer than 30 days.... until he then sent a letter that I now had 21 days left anyways. Thanks, buddy. Simple he said, but some of us have day-jobs. After freaking out a little, I called some others that have been through this process before and the consensus was that the way forward was ... lie... don't commit fraud, but give them a way that you COULD develop it. It's definitely not the way that 95% of them actually WILL happen, but they know this and just want some smoke/mirrors. I COULD cash in my whole 401k to do this project, but I'll let you in on a little secret, I definitely WON'T be taking that option. So yet another well intended way to incentivize actual redevelopment that I doubt really delivers results. Maybe a little smoke up your ass feels better than a passing breeze though, I guess.
So with the inspector being generally satisfied with the conditions of the space, I spent all of my time on the paperwork of the development plan. I put together basic floor plans, made up a construction budget, and printed out a page from an account with that enough cash in it (wonder what you do if you aren't that lucky?). I took me quite a while to measure the building and render the floor plans with free software. I also did more than just half-ass my construction budget. But ultimately, I turned it in in time and then scheduled another walk-through.
In this time, I had also been given a verbal from the inspector that issued the Stop Work order that I could finish cleaning up the downed debris, but hadn't had time between my day-job to do both paperwork and clean up. The VBML inspector's general satisfaction last time made me think that it wasn't a "gotta have" right now, but that it would be a "nice to have". So of course he changed his mind (and I can' really blame him looking back now) during this inspection. I just wish I would have known so that I could have hired Junk King to clean it up while I was doing paperwork. Now I had just under a week and it was a scramble and another vacation day taken off work.
After all that (and lost brain cells and the stress), he said I was ok, but his supervisor would have to give final approval. 2 months later I got something in the mail telling me that I got the waiver. In that meantime, there might have been a Halloween keg party. It's hazy.
So in one month, I ended up doing more to physically redevelop the building than in 4 months of dealing with the city. Welcome to Bizarro-Cincy.
* To me, it would make more sense for the fees that are collected to be kept in escrow with the property, so that they could build up into a larger incentive to redevelop it. Whomever obtains the certificate of occupancy should get the balance** of the funds that past owners paid in. It would also allow owners to recover more of the fees for use towards renovation by allowing the built up balance as a way to take risk out of the deal for lenders to finance redevelopment.
** Minus inspection fees from the city at a set rate (~$100) for those actually performed.
No comments:
Post a Comment