Photo By John HoffHawthorne Housing Director Jeff Skrenes dug up some new info about 2207 4th St. N., and it is quite frustrating to learn...
Here is Jeff's info, verbatim:
Many of us were working under the assumption the owner--Jose Hugo Contreras Vazquez--was a recent owner and had just purchased this property. Well, I checked county records and it turns out he bought the place in September, 2004 for $149,000. And it is on the CARE Committee list of problem properties already. Here is what care has to say about it, verbatim:
2207 4th St. N. (11/20/07) PPU. Building condemned with 26 open orders (7/3/07 due date) Moving forward to demo. Condemned board flag 7/6/07 & vacant building registration 7/6/07.
2/20/08 No change in status.
3/18/08 "director's order" to demolish is being considered, a new vacant building registry fee of $6,000 to be assessed in July 2008.
5/20/08 No change. 6/18/08 No change.
7/15/08 open violation grass/weeds.
8/20/08 multiple violations issued on property, due 11/08.
9/17/08 No change. 11/19/08 recent inspection, multiple housing violations. PPU will monitor. 12/17/08 No change.
Jeff continues:
So what, really, are we looking at, here? Mr. Contreras has been the owner of a property for the past 4 years and 3 months. The property has had problem property designation for the past 13 months. Usually in order for that to happen, it has to be boarded/vacant for the past 15 months. Residents living in the area may be able to give a more accurate history.
If that wasn't bad enough, once it went to a problem property status things have deteriorated continuously, starting with 26 open orders, then he can't even mow the grass, then "multiple violations" in inspections done in August and November, and culminating in the vacant house party a few weeks ago. (Click here)
I was thinking we'd invite a new owner to these meetings and set him straight. But with this history, I'm more in favor of just pushing him out and encouraging the city to go ahead with a demolition.
I should clarify one thing here. In order for a property to be put on the boarded/vacant, or "249" list, it has to be in that condition for 61 days or longer. That's how I got the "15 months." If it has been on the problem property list for the past 13 months, it's fairly safe to assume that it was boarded, vacant, or otherwise a nuisance for at least the 2 months prior to the initial designation. I realized that the way I put it earlier may not have been clear.
ReplyDelete