Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Submit Comments About 2222 4th St N Today!


Guest post and photo (taken only moments ago, and showing stucco plus two types of siding) by the Hawthorne Hawkman

This was just passed my way by a concerned resident: The fate of 2222 4th St N will go before the city council on Friday. Neighbors are asked to submit their comments to Diane Hofstede TODAY. Only comments and information about 2222 4th St N may be used to determine the actions taken by the city council.

It is the position of the JNS blog (and the two Hawthorne residents writing on it, John Hoff and Jeff Skrenes) that Mr. Khan has owned a property slated for demolition. The demolition was stayed under the conditions that he abide by an agreement to bring the property up to an acceptable standard within a specific time frame. Regardless of how much money, time, or effort Mr. Khan claims to have put into this structure, he is well past the deadline. He also claims that he will have or has spent $115,000 on the rehab, and that such work is 90% complete. Based on views of the exterior and the public information regarding the interior, those numbers do not appear to be credible. Based on Mr. Khan's failure to live up to his part of the agreement and the current condition of 2222 4th St N, we stand by the rules of the city of Minneapolis and the findings of the Nuisance Condition Process Review Panel and recommend demolition.

Please submit your comments to diane.hofstede@ci.minneapolis.mn.us or to your city council member.

Click "Read More" for the full statement of conclusions of the NCPR Panel.

(NOTE: I don't know how to do the squiggly legal symbol on this blog, so in its place I will use an S in bold type. At some point, John with his law degree may be able to come in and clean this up. For now, let's get the information out there.)

Conclusions

1. The building located at 2222 4th Street N. meets the definition of nuisance condition as set forth in M.C.O. S 249.30(a)(1) as the building is vacant and unoccupied for the purpose for which it was erected and the building has remained in such a condition for a period of at least six months.
2. The building located at 2222 4th Street N. meets the definition of nuisance condition as set forth in M.C.O. S 249.30(a)(2) as the doors, windows and other openings into the building are boarded up or otherwise secured by a means other than the conventional methods used in the original construction and design of the building, and the building has remained substantially in such condition for a period of at least sixty days.
3. The building located at 2222 4th Street N. meets the definition of nuisance condition as set forth in M.C.O. S 249.30(a)(3) as evidence, including but not limited to neighborhood impact statements, clearly demonstrates that the values of neighborhood properties have diminished as a result of the subject building. (emphasis mine)
4. The building located at 2222 4th Street N. meets the definition of nuisance condition as set forth in M.C.O. S 249.30(a)(4) as evidence clearly demonstrates that the cost of rehabilitation is not justified when compared to the after rehabilitation resale value of the building.
5. Pursuant to M.C.O. S 249.40 Abatement of nuisance conditions, the Director of Inspection's recommendation to raze the building located at 2222 4th St N is appropriate. The building meets the definition of a nuisance condition as defined by M.C.O. S 249.30 and a preponderance of the evidence, based upon the criteria listed in M.C.O. S 249.40, demonstrates that razing the building is appropriate. The building has been vacant and boarded for approximately one and a half years. This property has been neglected to the point that it has had a negative impact on the community and will continue to have a negative impact if it is not razed as attested to by the community impact statements submitted by neighbors requesting that the building be torn down. (emphasis mine)
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Inspections' Order to Raze the building located at 2222 4th St N. Minneapolis, Minnesota be upheld.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hawkman - Just say "Sec." instead of S (Bold).

Jordan Neighbor said...

Hawkman - as always - you're doing an awesome job on this blog.

Way to knock it out and keep us informed & entertained.

I mean, for goodness sake, ANYTHING to keep us from actually having to do REAL WORK!

Anonymous said...

I have a bad feeling about this motion on Friday. The city is bound by the building code and city ordinances. They are fairly weak when it comes to what is requried. In my conversation with a Councilmember, I didn't get a good feeling about this.

Anonymous said...

So Kahn is telling the city that he made $100,000 in improvements on a property he paid $21,000 for last year? I realize he isnt that best business man out there but any half intelligent "investor" wouldn't put more into a property than what they could cash flow or get in return by selling.

I Would love to see the reciepts for all the legal, documented 'up to code' work that was done on this property. As an agent I see far too many active properties that have been flipped or rehabbed by people who do not have a clue as to what they are doing. There needs to be a stronger presence with building codes and authority and tougher guidelines for how many properties an investor can hold and what he is doing with the properties he/she currently ownes. It's easy to buy up 10 properties for under $200,000 but what are you doing with them after you buy?

Anonymous said...

So, if I am a "shady" person and need a crib...I call Mr. Kahn?

MONTANA

Jordan Proud said...

Tear this place down. The murdered body of Annshalike Hamilton was found in the garage here. I know the murder can't be blamed on Mr. Kahn or anything, but there was a lot of graffiti in the garage and rumors of it being a party spot last fall, so I believe it was never secured. Bottom line, he's a no account slumlord.

JNS Reader said...

Do you mean this? § Try typing § wherever you want that to appear.

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

In terms of the $115,000 supposedly invested towards repairs:

The restoration agreement between Mr. Khan and the city of Minneapolis has the city estimating the cost of repairs at roughly $130,000.

The rehab estimates break down as follows:

1. House finishes $25,000 (includes sheet rock, mud, tape, texture of ceiling, paint interior and exterior, interior doors, wood trim around doors, windows and baseboard, hardware for doors and windows, bathroom cabinets and mirrors and exhaust fan, closets, window blinds and handrails, insulation etc.)
2. Garage, including doors $1,500 (Repair and or replace the two car garage doors)
3. Roof $12,000 (repair and replace shingles, roof rafter (or roof replacement) and chimney repairs)
4. Siding - Stucco $8,000 (paint and repairs only)
5. Plumbing $8,000 (bathroom, kitchen, and hot water heater estimate by Presto Plumbing.)
6. Doors and Windows $6,400 (Replace and repair as needed)
7. Electric $7,500 (Complete electrical work by Southside Electric)
8. Heating $8,000 (one furnace plus duct work)
9. Cabinets and appliances $2,000 (for kitchen)
10. Flooring $10,000 (Vinyl in bathrooms and kitchen and the rest of the house to have carpet)
11. Trash and debris removal $2,000
12. Foundation repair $10,000 (to secure foundation from water leaks and concrete repair as needed)
13. Miscellaneous $4,600 (Includes landscaping, walk ways and yard cleanup)
14. Additional code compliance work $10,000 (Roof rafter (or roof replacement), and chimney repairs, rear stairs, rim joist area that is rotten, replacement of the basement slab, removal of the existing asbestos furnace)

Estimated cost of rehabilitation +/-10%=$115,000 to $125,000

This is from the restoration agreement between Khan and the city. It is unclear whether this is Khan's plan or what the city said he needed to do. What is undisputed, however, is that Khan did sign this agreement and should therefore be bound to its terms and held accountable now that he has not complied.

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

@ JNS Reader: I can't find the § key on my keyboard!

Anonymous said...

wtf is wrong with you guys? This house surely doesn't look like it needs to be torn down. You only want to tear this property down based on the person who owns it. Tearing down S**T doesn't solve problems. Hell it's about to be cold outside and I'm sure some family would love to be here and call it a place of domain or refuge. I'm sick and tired of you telling mf's to tear down houses, why don't you tear yours down! By the way how much did you sell your first house for JNS? I'm sure somebody wiped your hands clean for a nice price!

Your the real Pimp!

Anonymous said...

Hi, Dyna here. I was over and had a look at 2222 today. It looks like there's been a flurry of activity lately to make the place look neat, judging from the new sod and fresh from the nursery flowers. But there's still a pallet of unlaid sod in the backyard for starters. Inside, there's a lot of unfinished work, attested by the fact that none of the permits have been closed. The garage doors don't look to have been replaced either.

The city should have never given an extension to rehab this property to begin with- clearly a proper rehab would have cost at least twice what the property will ever be worth. But MK has made some effort, so I suspect the city will give him more time to screw up some more.

Anonymous said...

Since my house is well maintained, the city would have no need to tear my house down. If Mr. Kahn really cared, he would have had the rehab done in time. Over the last year I have called 311 numerous times on his rehab project. Mostly for having a ton of garbage laying around and not shoveling his sidewalk.

Mr. Kahn has a proven track record of not giving a damn about the neighborhood. All you have to do is walk down the street and look at 2135 4th St N. Another clear examply of why he should not be trusted.

For the person that thinks we tell the city to tear down houses, I really think they should check their facts. They informs us of the properties that need to be torn down. We just put our voice behind them. Furthermore, if people would take some pride in their properties, including renters, these places would never get this bad.

Anonymous said...

to Anon 5:39 PM: no, they city does not always tell the neighborhood what houses need to be torn down, there are people in the neighborhood group that are looking for more houses for the city to target, and they scream until action is taken. They want more houses torn down, and do not care that we have to pick up the tab for the lost property tax revenue, or demolition costs. There is no rehabilitation for property owners in their plan, just target them until its torn down.

Slummy landlords or politically predatory neighbors; its hard to tell who the real criminals are these days when both can make a simple life a living hell.

Anonymous said...

It looks like when the thumbscrews are put to Mr. Khan, he comes around. At least the outside looks a lot better than it did previously, and certainly not worthy for demolition.

To anon 5:39 - What does a bad looking house have to do with overall trust? I mean, does this guy know the neighborhood is now keeping track of him? Or is he expected to just think, because so much of Hawthorne has been this way for years, that he needs to change now?

I'm not saying whether he is trustworthy or not, but that your argument to say he's not to be trusted because of a bad looking house is a little flawed.