Press enter after choosing selection

Abandoned Buildings

Abandoned Buildings image Abandoned Buildings image
Parent Issue
Day
22
Month
April
Year
1976
OCR Text

by David Weiss

Detroit's abandoned buildings are but another of America's many startling paradoxes: waste amidst plenty, gluttony amidst starvation, satiety amidst suffering.

The City of Detroit is currently demolishing about fifty buildings a week. This number is sure to increase as the weather warms and more violations are reported. Why, though, are houses being destroyed when the housing needs of Detroit's citizens are so pressing?

The reasons are many and complex. Much of the problem can be traced to massive abuse of the Housing Act of 1968, which enabled lower-income citizens to obtain federally-insured mortgages at low interest rates. HUD officials and real-estate sharps then joined forces to take advantage of inexperienced home-buyers—selling substandard housing to financially insolvent people at exorbitant rates. Most of HUD's foreclosed properties now stand abandoned—10,000 in Detroit alone.

Taking their place next to corrupt HUD bureaucrats are the banks and mortgage institutions. It is estimated that nearly 70 per cent of Detroit's abandoned properties belong to them, mostly via foreclosures. Not only do they refuse to either rehabilitate or demolish these buildings on their own—they also make it their policy to refuse loans to private investors who are willing to develop reuse potential. 

A recent call to American Federal Savings for information on their ownership of several structures in the city resulted in a fruitful misunderstanding. The employee, thinking that we were seeking a loan to buy property in Detroit, said "Oh, no! We don't loan any money for property purchases in the city." Such organized refusal to support investment amounts to a death certificate for central-city neighborhoods struggling to attract business and residential development. 

The city Department of Building and Safety Engineering works steadfastly to keep an eye on the increasing number of abandoned buildings. They cite violations of the city's dangerous buildings ordinance, and Common Council orders the owner either to prevent access or to bring the structure up to habitable standards. The only alternative is demolition.

The bankers don't even bother to show up at their hearings. They would just as soon have the City pay to demolish what they obviously consider "worthless" property. The financially strapped City must pay for demolition costs, in return for which they receive title to another parcel of vacant land. Needless to say, the City needs real revenue from occupied buildings—not the burden of further ownership.

Neither do the banks find it necessary to keep up with tax payments to the city. Again, they would prefer state foreclosure in lieu of taxes.

Private owners of abandoned buildings are generally not as morally culpable as the r L banks, since most of them simply haven't got the resources to develop their properties. In fact, a handful of these citizens were the only people interested enough to appear before Council last week to argue against demolition of their buildings.

Many of these owners were making their third or fourth appearance to stay demolition of their properties. Apparently, though owners try repeatedly to at least board up the doors and windows, there is an equally determined group of plywood thieves who render their efforts useless.

"What can I do now?" a woman asked the council emotionally. "I want to hold on to the house. Maybe in a few years things will get a little better, and I can fix it up."

Councilman Jack Kelley, a 30-year veteran of the construction trade, took a look at the photographs of her building and estimated it would require $30,000 to make it habitable again. She was given sixty days to begin rehabilitation efforts. After that: demolition.

Many of the properties held by private owners are old family homes inhabited now only by memories and sentiment—making demolition a painful option. But without the help of them that got—the bankers—there is little hope that the swing of the derrick's boom can be stopped.

Nothing short of economic revitalization and the attendant loosening of the bankers' death-grip on city development will forestal I the further crumbling Detroit's central-city area. As is the pattern in America, money and power gravitate not to where it is most needed, but to where it propagates most efficiently—like Troy, Dearborn or Southfield. For who hold the purse strings, suburban high-rise buildings with orange-mirrored windows seem to be more important than arresting central-city blight.

David Weiss is the Sun's staff writer.