Subj:    Re: Demolition by neglect
Date:   2/13/98 5:44:11 PM EST
From:   [log in to unmask] (Bradford J. White)
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask] (Bradford J. White)
To:     [log in to unmask] (Dan Becker), [log in to unmask]

Demolition by neglect has always been a very interesting concept in
preservation circles.  The standards that you have provided are very good
ones.  However, I often tell my clients, particularly those troubled by
enforcement of demolition by neglect standards particularly when considering
woefully understaffed preservation commissions, is to educate the building
inspectors and bring actions under the building code.  Nearly every building
code provides for citations, etc. for the problems listed in your ordinance.

In addition, courts don't look favorably on people creating their own
hardship.  In other words, one who lets their property deteriorate
significantly is not looked upon favorably when he/she then argues that it
will cost too much to make appropriate repairs.  All that being said,
demolition by neglect standards are a useful to point to when having
problems with an owner, but some enforcement mechanism must be included in
the ordinance.

At 04:03 PM 2/13/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Here are some of the resources on this topic, which we consulted in
>preparing our ordinance.  Legal issues attendant to demolition by neglect
>intersect with legal considerations for economic hardship and "takings" law.
>
>Planning Advisory Service Report #416
>Responding to the Takings Challenge: A Guide for Officials and Planners
>Richard J. Roddewig and Christopher J. Duerksen
>May 1989, American Planning Association, Chicago, IL
>[This is a primary resource if you are planning on fooling around with
>demolition by neglect in your historic preservation ordinance.  Must
>reading]
>
>Symposium on Economic Hardship in the Historic Preservation Context
>May 27 and 28, 1992, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY
>Sponsored by The Preservation League of NY State
>518/462-5658
>and the National Trust for Historic Preservation
>202/673-4255
>
>Counteracting Demolition by Neglect: Effective Regulations for Historic
>District Ordinances
>Oliver A. Pollard, III
>The Alliance Review, Winter 1990
>News from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions
>
>
>Since questions seem to be revolving around the standards for defining
>demolition by neglect, I will type in the section of our ordinance that
>lists our standards:
>
>(a) Deterioration of exterior walls, foundations, or other vertical support
>that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing, or buckling.
>(b) Deterioration of flooring or floor supports, roofs, or other horizontal
>members that causes leaning, sagging, splitting, listing, or buckling.
>(c) Deterioration of external chimneys that causes leaning, sagging,
>splitting, listing, or buckling.
>(d) Deterioration or crumbling of exterior plasters or mortars.
>(e) Ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, and foundations,
>including broken windows or doors.
>(f) Defective protection or lack of weather protection for exterior wall
>and roof coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of
>paint or other protective covering.
>(g) Rotting, holes, and other forms of decay.
>(h) Deterioration of exterior stairs, porches, handrails, window and door
>frames, cornices, entablatures, wall facings, and architectural details
>that causes delamination, instability, loss of shape and form, or crumbling.
>(i) Heaving, subsidence, or cracking of sidewalks, steps, or pathways.
>(j) Deterioration of fences, gates, and accessory structures)
>(k) Deterioration that has a detrimental effect upon the special character
>of the district as a whole or the unique attributes and character of the
>Historic Landmark.
>(l) Deterioration of any exterior feature so as to create or permit the
>creation of any hazardous or unsafe conditions to life, safety, or other
>property.
>[Raleigh City Code, Part 10, Chapter 6, Article J. Demolition by Neglect of
>Historic Landmarks and Structures within Historic Overlay Districts,
>Section 10-6180, Standards.]
>
>An important point in applying these types of ordinances is making sure you
>have good timing.  Too early in the process of a building's deterioration,
>and you risk not being able to legally demonstrate that you have a right to
>force someone to fix it up.  If you wait too long, and it's really gone way
>down hill, then an economic analysis may prove that the value of the
>structure is so low, and the costs of repair so high, that forcing a person
>to repair it would create an economic hardship.  In these cases the end
>result is usually demolition.  But the legal standards for proving economic
>hardship in the demolition by neglect context are complex and narrow; it's
>hard for a property owner to demonstrate economic hardship, and it's a
>legal minefield for enforcement that offers myriad opportunities for
>procedural mistakes of due process that can result in being overturned on
>appeal.
>
>All in all, demolition by neglect ordinances are not a place for the faint
>of heart.  But if you do it right, they can be very rewarding in preserving
>resources that would otherwise be lost due to benign or intentional neglect.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dan Becker,  Executive Director       "Conformists die, but
>Raleigh Historic                                 heretics live on forever"
>Districts Commission                                   -- Elbert Hubbard
>
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
Brad White
Project Management Advisors, Inc.
117 North Jefferson, Suite 303
Chicago, Illinois  60661-2300
Ph: 312.207.1764
Fax: 312.207.1046