Description
Back side of house has boarded up windows and fire damage. Has not been repaired in the seven years following the fire. Property values have dropped because no one wants to buy a house beside an abandoned, fire damaged house. Garage has graffiti on door and kids regularly abuse property because they know it is abandoned.
43 Comments
Angie (Guest)
These people come daily to work on landscaping and spend upwards of 12 hours at property.
There are evenings when they work outside past dark, keeping people up. I also vote they fix it.
CocoNut (Guest)
AThompson (Registered User)
Angie (Guest)
Angie (Guest)
Angie (Guest)
It has been two months since I have heard back from Erin Stewart. I have not received any phone calls in return.
POINT click Fix... Tell me who do I talk to now?!
Closed The True Red Deer Lover (Registered User)
The property is therefore not abandoned. Issue closed.
The True Red Deer Lover (Registered User)
Reopened Daryl Kikstra (Guest)
Denise (Guest)
Daryl Kikstra (Guest)
Daryl Kikstra (Guest)
Closed reddeerlover (Registered User)
AThompson (Registered User)
This area is going to hell in a hand basket... And quick!
I have seen other property owners thumb their noses at authority and rules ( Look up Dell Price and his fight with the City)... This is shades of the same!
I'm grateful our new home is away from this mess.
rochelle (Guest)
Reopened Daryl Kikstra (Registered User)
Denise (Guest)
Denise (Guest)
There are community standards bylaws to deal with this house as well as taxation law. Unless you know the owner you dont' know if they pay taxes or not. If I lived next door to this mess I would be at council meetings often. The owner has several properties, sell one to get this house liveable or sell this house as a lot sale and be done with it. 7 years is long enough for a neighborhood eye sore. Old Eastview has enough problems without homeowners that do not look after their properties and landscaping is nice but that is not the crux of the issue.
reddeerlover (Registered User)
reddeerlover (Registered User)
AThompson (Registered User)
AThompson (Registered User)
So Red Deer Lover, when I petition council and go to the papers, you are welcome to sign it.
I understand that the Bylaw doesn't deal specifically with the house, however, allow me and others to build momentum towards making our communities better.
As far as being abandoned, it is a non issue. There is no reason why they could not have repaired this property yet. The longer it sits vacant and derelict, the more time critters have to infest the house, the more time the house and yard attract people up to no good, and what happens of this house became vandalized with fire? The property owners on either side would also suffer losses.
Some points to ponder:
- A study of Austin, Texas concluded that neighborhoods with unsecured vacant buildings had over three times as many drug calls, almost twice as many theft calls, and twice the number of violent calls to police as neighborhoods without vacant buildings
- Every year, there are more than 12,000 fires, most intentionally set, in vacant structures, resulting in $73 million in property damage;
- A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced an average net loss of $7,627 in value.6
The issue for me is that there is a severe gap in the bylaws as these problem properties show.
The city should be allowed to be able to cap the amount of years a property can stand in disrepair. It should have some recourse to go after property owners that have a disregard for their neighbours at such an extreme level.
The community standards bylaw has some serious gaps in it, and perhaps, this issue remaining open could help us illustrate the city wide issue of derelict properties (and the problems they bring) and owners that believe that they can do whatever they like just because they pay taxes and own property. Sounds a little sociopath is to me.
Denise (Guest)
I have sent this link and all the comments to the city. My contact is having compliance revisit this issue to see what has been done in the past. Please feel free to send your complaints to the bylaw as A Thompson said to keep the momentum and pressure going so something will be resolved with this house sooner than later.
Denise (Guest)
reddeerlover (Registered User)
Denise (Guest)
reddeerlover (Registered User)
reddeerlover (Registered User)
last time i checkedout what an absentee landlord meant it is --- an owner of a property not living on the premises. It does not mean someone who does not look after and care for their property though.....Not all property owners can live on the properties they own! Absentee landlord is not a negative term or wrong thing to be which you are inferring.You would need to come up with another term or phrase if you want it to be a negative thing.
You also need to read my response that I wrote previously but the moderator has not let it showed up yet I guess. I responded to AR THOMPSON's last comment posted today and if the moderator puts up my response then you will see that the end result of what we both want is not so different.We want the same thing but for different reasons. if the moderator does not put it up by morning then i will re=post it
Daryl Kikstra (Registered User)
AThompson (Registered User)
Redeerlover:
this will be my final post to you, you have been ridiculous an you can seek attention from me but I will not give it to you. Any comments will be ignored.
Do you know where you stand on issues? Or do you prefer to just rile people up to procure points on this online system...?
You wondered about proof of property values and quality of life being brought down by these properties. You provided it to me in a comment you made on another issue 5 days ago.
If you were my friend you couldn't visit me or buy my house... As you wouldn't set foot in Inglewood due to it's issues.
Properties like this an others have a funny way of making people not want to live by them or invite crime, making people not want to visit.
That in turn would affect my quality of life and my property values... Thank you.
Angie (Guest)
You, red deer lover, are starting a debate that isn't here.
The points I put up are for reference, you know, like when you post your dictionary terms. It's reference to help people put something into terms they understand.
This is not a debate.
I lived in the very close vicinity to the house (exact location not required but I was very close) and was even friends with the owners.
Two things: you claim I cannot give evidence of a fire. LOOK AT THE PICTURE! If this issue is so important to you then drive past the house and check it out! I also LIVED THERE when the FIRES occurred. There was an original fire and then a SECOND fire!
Second issue: I nor anyone else said that these owners should have their properties taken from them. NO ONE! You are the one that has said these things. You are always typing about property rights....As a property owner we have rights AND responsibilities. This is an issue throughout Red Deer that needs to be addressed.
This building highlights it for me because I have so much background information on it. They should have the right to own a property as long as it doesn't cause issues for homeowners surrounding. (I lived there for 7 years and now this issue has been going on for 8 YEARS! Come on, enough is enough.)
Then comes in their responsibility: fix it so that the issues don't continue. Rent it out, fix the siding, move back in, put in windows, fix your eaves troughs so that critters do not enter the property. Doing landscaping does not make it look like people live there.
DO SOMETHING about your responsibility as a building/property owner.
For someone that likes to throw around a lot of "facts" and garbage information, you like to call others out for the same. From now on I look forward to seeing nothing from you that includes any reference material.
Again, this is not a debate, if you don't agree with it, go away. We have heard your side, thank you, good bye.
Did you realize you actually help us by posting your posts here??? Every time you post an off topic post here, or you think we are in a debate, you put this topic at the top of the list... THANK YOU!
And just a little post script: Arguing with people online does not make you look intelligent.
reddeerlover (Registered User)
Denise (Guest)
To Angie, Daryl and A. Thompson you have much more patience than I do for irrational rants.
reddeerlover (Registered User)
Sounds like you want to make this website a vehicle for the city to control and determine only. This is not the city’s website rather it a see click fix website, based in the US...........Accordingly, “SeeClickFix uses the power of public and distributed communication via the web to bring citizens closer to their local government and each other. Through partnerships with local media, governments and social user features SeeClickFix has spread all over the United States and is starting to spread internationally.” (quoted from http://seeclickfix.blogspot.ca/)........So, the see click fix website is to bring the citizens closer to their local government and each other. Is the local government not wanting to get closer to its citizens? Or perhaps just not closer to those that disagree with them and point out shortcomings? This would be irrational (defined as not logical or reasonable)........The city promotes this website on their own website as a means to report non-emergency problems in the community ……….. http://www.reddeer.ca/OnlineServices/reportaproblem.htm …… Therefore, the city has the option to participate in and on this website like any other member, or not........With that, the city should be aware they cannot control and stop others’ opinions being voiced on this website because they do not like what is being said, otherwise we would not be living in a very free and democratic community, more like, a community of censorship. This would be irrational (defined as not logical or reasonable).......Denise, I never have enough time on my hands for issues in or about Red Deer. I am just wanting to make our community a better place and a community who respects one another’s opinions including differing opinions in order to seek the best solution for Red Deer. The best results when dealing with an issue is listening to all sides of the issue in order to formulate the best viable solution. We would be a very closed minded, narrow minded community if it does not listen to differing sides to issues and does not want to find the best solution to an issue. I would think someone posting an issue on this website is using this website as a vehicle to finding the best & most viable solution to that issue.........For you this issue, you say, is futile from your comments above, but for me this issue is not, unless council and government do not do what they should do, what they are suppose to do, and what they are elected to do. Diatribe no, not at all, you give me too credit and power. I am merely giving suggestions on how to fix issues lacking and wanting. I was always taught by school and family that is the polite, logical, and reasonable thing to do - raising an issue is the easy part, but one also needs a real logical, reasonable, viable solution to resolve an issue. Great parents, great teachers and great schooling in Red Deer taught me this important lesson.
reddeerlover (Registered User)
It was in fact Denise that said the following..... "If the city has to sue her than do it and it can be a lot sale and tear that house down." ...... Sounds pretty much like stripping the owner of their property by suing them, having a lot sale, and tear the house down....
AThompson (Registered User)
Denise (Guest)
AThompson (Registered User)
This sums it up City of Red Deer, you have the authority to do something.
RSA 2000
Section 546.1 Chapter M-26
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ACT
292
Municipal Government Act
Order to remedy dangers and unsightly property
546(0.1) In this section,
(a) “detrimental to the surrounding area” includes causing the
decline of the market value of property in the surrounding
area;
(b) “unsightly condition”,
(i) in respect of a structure, includes a structure whose
exterior shows signs of significant physical
deterioration, and
(ii) in respect of land, includes land that shows signs of a
serious disregard for general maintenance or upkeep.
(1) If, in the opinion of a designated officer, a structure, excavation
or hole is dangerous to public safety or property, because of its
unsightly condition, is detrimental to the surrounding area, the
designated officer may by written order
(a) require the owner of the structure to
(i) eliminate the danger to public safety in the manner
specified, or
(ii) remove or demolish the structure and level the site;
(b) require the owner of the land that contains the excavation
or hole to
(i) eliminate the danger to public safety in the manner
specified, or
(ii) fill in the excavation or hole and level the site;
(c) require the owner of the property that is in an unsightly
condition to
(i) improve the appearance of the property in the
manner specified, or
(ii) if the property is a structure, remove or demolish the
structure and level the site.
(2) The order may
(a) state a time within which the person must comply with the
order;
(b) state that if the person does not comply with the order
within a specified time, the municipality will take the
action or measure at the expense of the person.
1994 cM-26.1 s546;1999 c11 s31
AThompson (Registered User)
Thetruthhurts (Guest)
Given the fact that insurance is clearly not going to address this issue, you have to ask, what is the series of events that lead up to these last 7 years? Please, do not pick up the violin, unless you are prepared for a full orchestra from the neighbours.
Bottom line. The homeowner needs to bite the bullet and clean it up OR the residents will have to band together and head to court. The City Council will NEVER get involved. My neighbours retaining wall is falling into my yard, their property is 4 feet above grade, their fence is 10 feet above ground, and all of their water drains into my backyard. 2 years of dragged out home visits, empty promises and...NOTHING. It is costing me at least $15,000.00 in the value of my property and that is IF I can sell. Tear down a half burnt down home?? HA! You are waisting your time.
The City of Red Deer does not protect it's citizens or their properties. You have 7 years of proof. The by-laws were created by a much more conscientious council that no longer exists. That list of 'laws' are mere suggestions for polite society. Meanwhile the City's inaction almost validates the offending homeowner.
Call a lawyer. All of you. Add court costs to your claim. Your obligations to 'politeness and sensitivity' have been met. Time to ask for yours in return.
reddeerlover (Registered User)
"Can the neighbors sue you?" This question reminds me of the skit from SNL (Saturday Night Live) where a little old lady was waiting for a bus and an attorney approached her and ask:
Attorney: Would you like to make a lot of money?
Little Old Lady: Well, I guess I wouldn't mind.
Attorney: And are you willing to sue someone to make a lot of money?"
Little Old Lady: Well I haven't thought about it but I guess I would. But don't you have to have a reason to sue someone?
Attorney: "Myth #1, You need no reason to sue someone. Simply the desire is sufficient.'
"Can the neighbors sue you?" The answer is Yes. What if oil from your underground oil tank was travelling to their property and causing oil fumes in their basement?" Could they sue you? Can the neighbors sue you for not maintaining your property? Technically, they could sue you but practically unless they could show that they lost a sale on their house due to you, or some direct and real damage, they really can't sue you. But if your sewage was running over their property, obviously they would have a valid reason to sue you.
A Town can bring a lawsuit against you for not maintaining your property, especially when you are violating health and safety standards but this type of lawsuit would be extremely rare and usually the Town would give you the opportunity to correct the problem. The odds of the Town bringing legal action is remote.
The City of Red Deer (Registered User)
Acknowledged The City of Red Deer (Registered User)
Thank you for reporting an item through SeeClickFix. We apologize for the delay in updating you on the status of this item, but we will follow-up with you shortly regarding this issue.
If you still have concerns about this issue, please contact us at 403-342-8190.
Thank you.