Saturday, Feb 4, 2012
workaround

Donate Now tile

User login

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.




workaround



Triangle Park Creative

FORUM | North Minneapolis: Rehab, demolition, and the foreclosure crisis

By Madeleine Baran

Home on Russell Avenue in North Minneapolis - slated for rehab. Photos courtesy of Madeleine Baran.

June 07, 2009
Sweeping changes in North Minneapolis’s urban landscape are underway, as developers and the city decide whether to demolish or restore large numbers of foreclosed vacant properties in the largely low-income neighborhoods.

While the number of demolitions has sparked debate, many North Minneapolis residents expressed hope that their neighborhood will benefit from increased redevelopment funding.



Tell us what you think


Use the comment box below to join in the discussion:


• What should be the criteria for deciding between demolition or rehab?

• What kind of community notification and discussion should take place before demolition?

• What public policies can support renters, homeowners and prospective homeowners in making their neighborhoods more stable?
More than half of the city’s vacant properties are located in north Minneapolis. From 2007 to 2008, the number of demolitions in the neighborhood increased by over 60 percent. At the same time, north-Minneapolis-area property rehabilitations increased by almost 200 percent.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding

Last year, new federal funding under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program brought local non-profit developers and governments together to prevent urban blight by obtaining and redeveloping foreclosed vacant properties.

In Minneapolis, the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC), a non-profit developer, has been working with city officials to demolish or renovate a significant chunk of housing stock on the north side. The city received $6.5 million in the first round of funding.

Since last year, GMHC has purchased 182 foreclosed properties, mostly in north Minneapolis. The developer renovated 107 of the units, demolished 28, and sold the rest to local non-profits.

The case for demolition

Some properties are just too costly to repair, GMHC’s Stephanie Gruver said. Copper wiring and appliances are frequently stolen from vacant foreclosed homes. The properties can become centers for drug sales and prostitution. Many homes have been neglected for years, and require everything from a new roof to a new electrical system.

On the 3600 block of Lyndale Avenue North, a one-story, two-room home awaits demolition. The tiny property, which needs new electric and heating systems, would cost about $40,000 to renovate, Gruver said. On a recent morning, sunlight streamed into the turn-of-the-century home, illuminating a burned electrical outlet and decades-old appliances.

The case against demolition

At the same time, some community members worry that demolishing vacant homes could lead to long-term problems.

“Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever,” Century 21 realtor and preservation advocate Connie Nompelis said.

The vacant lots are likely to remain empty until the housing market picks up. So far, city officials have not provided concrete plans for the redevelopment of these lots, some of which take up as much as half of a block. Under current federal funding regulations, the city has between one and four years to redevelop the vacant lots, Cherie Shoquist, coordinator of the city’s Foreclosure Project, said.

“It’s like a pendulum.” Hawthorne Community Council’s housing director Jeff Skrenes said. “For a long time, demolitions were viewed as bad because they were taking away housing and people need housing.” But since the housing crisis, Skrenes said, attitudes have shifted in favor of a balance between demolition and renovation.

Rehab and renovation

A large two-story bungalow on the corner of 14th Avenue and Russell Avenue North is slated for renovation. Although the roof needs extensive repair work, much of the home’s original interior woodwork remains in excellent condition. “It’s just really spectacular,” Gruver said, standing in the home’s living room, admiring the original beveled glass and built-in wooden benches.

GMHC purchased the property for less than $70,000 and estimates that renovations will cost about $100,000. Gruver expects the property will sell quickly.



More resources and information

Greater Minneapolis Housing Corporation
NOMI Home Buyers Tour
Minneapolis Historic Homeowners Association
Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission

Home demolitions: Can North Minneapolis avoid becoming a little Detroit?



Neighborhood Associations


Cleveland Neighborhood Association
Folwell Neighborhood Association
Harrison Neighborhood Association
Hawthorne Neighborhood Association
Jordan Area Community Council
Lind-Bohanon Neighborhood Association
Camden Community News
Northside Resident Redevelopment Council
Old Highland Community
Shingle Creek Neighborhood Association
Victory Neighborhood Association
Webber Camden Neighborhood Association
Willard Homewood Neighborhood

Striking the balance

Developers say that limited financial resources require that some homes be demolished, as they would be too costly to repair. “People don’t want to tear down great houses,” Gruver said. “But unfortunately there are a lot of houses that are really beyond their useful lives.”

Some residents expressed concern about the lack of a formal notification process between GMHC and neighborhood organizations. In March, neighbors posted complaints to the E-Democracy forum. In response, GMHC agreed to provide tours of homes prior to demolition to members of the Central Area Neighborhood Development Organization (CANDO).

The delicate balance between demolition and renovation can result in homes on the same block being treated differently.

On homeowner Peter Teachout’s street, developers decided to demolish a long-standing drug house. Teachout had complained about the property for years, leading drug dealers to set his truck on fire, he said. “It was so frustrating,” he said, adding that, in this case, foreclosure accomplished what years of complaints could not.

At the same time, Teachout supports the planned renovation of a historic home sitting next door to the dilapidated drug house. “It’s a balance between the two,” he said.

In the next several months, city officials and developers both say they expect to see more renovations and fewer demolitions. In the meantime, north Minneapolis residents will likely not know the exact impact of the demolitions and renovations for several years.

“This is kind of like accumulating pieces to a puzzle,” Gruver said. “You just have to see what you come out with.”

Madeleine Baran is a freelance journalist specializing in labor and poverty issues. Her articles have appeared in The New York Daily News, Dollars & Sense, Clamor, The New Standard, and other publications. Email madeleine@tcdailyplanet.net


mbaran's picture
Madeleine Baran

Madeleine Baran is a freelance journalist specializing in labor and poverty issues. Her articles have appeared in The New York Daily News, Dollars & Sense, Clamor, The New Standard, and other p

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Minneapolis Housing Demolitions

What a painful issue. I think of Palestine when I hear of housing demolitions--and I think of homes without people for people without a home.

Eminent domain is the answer

It's amazing to me that officials can't see the answer to this -- the city needs to take possession of the properties before they get out of hand. In many cases, the lenders can't be found because of the derivatives market. Rather than let the properties languish, take them by eminent domain and get them in the hands of new owners, or at least give them to a homeless housing agency for use, before they sit vacant for months. Lender/owners should be required to be on register with the city/county. Many lender/owners right now are even lying low because they don't want to be found, because the situation is so bad. They should lose their assets if they can't maintain them. If state statutes prohibit this, then the Legislature should get off their duffs and take care of this.

the north side

I'm gald to see people taking care of their homes again. being a long time northsider but also it seem like you are trying to push the people out who have been here the longest and the people who arejust holding on to there homes. i was here when the4 jewish people live here than move out because of the blacks. now you come back with an bunch of laws or fines and tell people what they can and cannot do with there own property.i want to see the northside clean up but do it the right way . More owners than renters. stop people from just hanging out fine people who don't cut there grass and fine people for having a grill in there front yard

More pieces to the puzzle

It strikes me that so many people seem to just accept the idea that the nonprofits will decide what is feasible to rehab or not. What about the private market? Non-profits typically have pretty high development costs due to their business model, which works out when they receive subsidies (GMHC receives a tremendous amount of public money), but they often can't keep costs manageable for a number of reasons. While I appreciate the fact that the non-profits typically develop homes for owner-occupants, the simple fact is that there are far too many properties that need attention for the non profits to handle them all. So, why is demolition preferable to letting the private market have a chance at the property? I've seen several "basket case" homes renovated by private parties (sometimes future occupants, sometimes for-profit) in my neighborhood, and more could be possible if nonprofits like GMHC didn't lock out the for-profits or would-be do-it-yourselfers in favor of demolition. Certainly for some homes, demolition is the only option, but that is far more rare than GMHC would have us believe. Demolition should always be the last option. As was noted in the article, once these houses are gone they are gone forever. Furthermore, we no longer have old growth forests to harvest to build new houses, so the quality of new houses does not compare and the entire notion of scooping up and hauling a whole house to the landfill should offend anyone with any level of "green" sensibilities. The formula used by nonprofits to determine when to demolish is also very suspect. I've heard of cases where homes are demolished because someone considers the floorplan to be odd. So, after 100+ years of being occupied a floorplan can be subjectively deemed "odd" and an entire house gets carted to the landfill. Further, the cost of demolition in most cases will be $15k to $25k. These costs are rarely figured into the cost of the replacement structure (if there is to be one), which they should be. It is sad to think about the number of houses coming down that don't need to, all for the lack of a comprehensive approach to the issue. Further, one has to wonder what happens to the vacant lots. Will they be filled with those ticky tack jobs that nonprofits usually build? You know, the ones with buffalo board walls, plastic siding and foam details that don't even look good from a distance? It makes me wonder if the real intention of the demolition craze is to create a neighborhood such that people with options will choose not to live there...then you'd have a real ghetto, and maybe there are those who would profit in some way from that. This would complete the ghetto-ization of certain areas of our city that has been underway for decades.

Total agreement

The city should be supporting the private market with the same fairness it gives the non-profit like GMHC. It is discrimantory. The fees the city is now adding on for vacant building (VBR) is $6000! That is absurd! the claims are the additional resources needed to manage a vacant building. What resources? All cost associated with a vacant property are charged back to the property for whoever owns it or will own it. Where are the city's additional cost? Every grass mow ($119), Every board placed on its exterior is billed to the property and eventually moved to a special assessment on the taxes if it remains unpaid. It is another way to discourage investment by the private market---which seems either counter productive for the city or bias toward the city or the few city selected agencies having first right and preferential treatment to purchase property in North Minneapolis. Another hilarious charge is the $1000 for a rental license if a building has not had a rental license within 1 year...supposedly for inspection purposes. What inspection has ever cost $1000. A "new build" inspection and code compliance inspection is less around $300. A Truth in Housing is often less than $300. The inspection are much less detailed and often has an inspector with no contractors or professional trade licensing to determine hazards. Why on earth would the limited type of inspection render a fee of $1000? So an investor has to add $7000 on top of the purchase price where the city and its favored non-profits do not...it is a racket for sure. Something needs to be done about the crupt practices of the city with regard to North Minneapolis.

Private market

David: the private market does get first crack at any house. The non-profits come in when no one cares to buy the property, If the market really *isn't* being given an opportunity to rehab the structure, it would be because of city regulations. For instance, not allowing a structure to be rehabbed into a higher density structure that would make it economic structure. Or requiring stringent compliance with new-building codes which are difficult to do with an old structure. The city doesn't really seem to be interested in helping private developers in these cases.

Some vacant lots for community gardens

I agree that there should be a mix of approachs to keep neighborhoods intact. Keeping quality housing in the neighborhoods has got to be a priority or North Mpls becomes even more ghettoized. What I would like to see that if a house is slated to be demolished, that there is a conversation with the neighborhood to see if a community garden couldn't be installed. This article points out that with so much vacant property in North Minneapolis, the likelihood of a lot being redeveloped is slim. CPED or the County could provide a long-term lease for a community garden and during demolition, keep the water system intact for use by the community garden. All too often planning for community gardens comes AFTER the property has been vacant and loitering is occuring. THEN water access becomes an issue and it can be hard to acquire, but it so necessary for their success (among other factors). In North Minneapolis, *where there is a demand for community gardens, and the numbers are small, and *where access to healthy foods is poor, and *where community gardens can improve neighborhoods -- the public sector should consider this approach. (Studies show a correlation between increased quality of life with the presence of community gardens, as well as increased property values.) It is far cheaper to keep the water from a demo than to build it into the community garden later. And it makes for a more sustainable community garden when it has secure access to water. And lastly, I have to state, this is not a question of housing vs gardens. Community gardens should be part of the landscape along with a healthy housing sector. I'm not saying that every vacant lot should be a community garden. However, the community garden can be an outside classroom, a meeting space for the community, it can be a place where positive things happen around beauty and food production. Yet another healthy/active living activity to engage people and bring them together. When community gardens are a permanent part of the urban landscape, then they can become anchors for the neighborhood, increasing its livabilty in good times and in bad.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <br> <img> <span> <div>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use [google_ad:ad_slot] to display Google Admanager ads within your content.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
workaround

Free Speech Zone

The Free Speech Zone offers a space for contributions from readers, without editing by the TC Daily Planet. This is an open forum for articles that otherwise might not find a place for publication, including news articles, opinion columns, and announcements. The opinions expressed in the Free Speech Zone and Neighborhood Notes, as well as the opinions of bloggers, are their own and not necessarily the opinion of the TC Daily Planet.

Click here to see a display of Twin Cities problem reports, from potholes to neighborhood eyesores. Click here to report a problem. Have you used SeeClickFix? Have you gotten any response from city officials? Let us know - email info@tcdailyplanet.net