Another Head-Scratcher: 432 Clermont Avenue
Does anyone know what the story is with 432 Clermont Avenue? It’s been looking like this for as long as anyone we know can remember. GMAP P*Shark
Get started on
your next project
hey 12:38, that was an incredibly smart (and definitely gutsy) idea to roof it yourself…just curious, though…
even though the new roof surely saved further interior/structural decay, did it not make the mold problem worse for you by “trapping” the already moldy wood/plaster/etc. inside? or did most of the mold eventually dry out and die? (i understand it almost never completely goes away unless you remove all elements that it was in contact with.)
I’m sorry for the residents on this street. Hopefully you can get the City to take action…
OMG about the sanitation. Sometimes you really wonder about priorities. The Sanitation police have been on a tear, literally, tearing through garbage bags to check contents. I am becoming a garbologist and I still got 2 tickets last month.
12:38 PM, that’s a horrible story; you’re right, the abandoned building syndrome is not so cut and dry especially when it involves the surrogate court.
The surrogate court itself needs an entire overhaul. But I understand that it’s changing. The property that I eventually ended up buying was locked up in surrogate court for over a year. And my understanding is that I got off very easy. Still, it amazes me how greedy some of these feuding relatives can be.
Maybe the city should reassign some of the sanitation ticket writers over to DOB or the surrogate court. Those ticket writers are some of the most competent, agressive and motivated city workers. We could sure use them over at the DOB and in the surrogate courts.
You want to know how the city could make zillions of additional dollars in property taxes?
GET RID OF RENT CONTROL AND RENT STABILIZATION.
I live in Clinton Hill, and until recently the house adjacent to mine was in the same state, also due to feuding legatees (the surrogate court litigation took about 10 years). The pipes burst and flooded the basement on the opposite side. I got moths and mold coming through the party wall, as the adjacent roof gave up the ghost around year two of the court battle, and started letting water sluice through the building every time it rained. I finally got tired of threatening the legatees and their nonresponsive lawyers and plotting litigation against them all. So I called my regular (very competent) roofer, and had their house reroofed (ps: don’t try this at home, it’s illegal trespass; I was just desperate). This solution was definitely cheaper than more litigation, and a lot more efficient. When the legatees finally settled, I handed the bill to the one who wound up with the building, and he actually paid it with a big thank you; said he’d wanted to reroof the house for the ten years they’d been in litigation, but couldn’t get access to do anything. Maybe…
if only the city could realize that they would make so much more money getting these buildings fully occupied and utilized than they would from penalizing homeowners and business who are really trying to their part in improving the community.
They go after paltry sanitation fees when they can make a hundred times that amount in increased revenues from sales, property and income tax.
It really irks me when I see these boarded up buildings, especially in the midst of a fairly robust and competitive market.
Shahn, I don’t understand why the block association is unwilling to take this to the next level, especially when the owner lives two blocks away and is more contented with letting the structure rot.
It wouldn’t happen on my block. I would become best of friends with the local politicians so that they would take the necessary steps to get the owner to remedy the situation. ‘Structural defects’ may just be a code word for ‘let’s tear this thing down and maximize the FAR’.
11:27. The reason is because there are a lot of nitwits who work for the city. The sanitation people who write tickets are the lowest worse than the parking people. I know a store owner on 5th Ave in park slope and she has seen the sanitation officer place trash in front of the store and write a ticket. they have also gotten a ticket for trash that someone dumped in front of the store. The ticket was written before the store opened in the morning.
It’s a horrible mess when relatives fight over there inheritance. A lot of these ‘owners’ live out of state. And they can be just as greedy and irrational as an unethical developer.
This is what boggles my mind. If the city can fine homeowners for trash in their front yard (e.g., cups and cigarette butts thrown onto the front stoop by a passerby), why can’t they do something about these neglectful, absentee homeowners. You go out of town for a week and if your neighbor isn’t looking out for you, your front yard gets filled with fliers, promotionals, etc. Any you get fined in excess of $350, just because you weren’t home to pick up the mess that other people leave on your doorstep.
Maybe I’m missing the logic but aren’t these abandoned buildings far worse than a front yard that temporarily has some litter in it.
The way that I look at it, that’s 3 apartments that are vacant. that’s anywhere from 3 to 6 additional salaries that the city can’t collect income tax on (because you know that as soon as this building gets sold it will be occupied by working professionals).
The same goes for the abandoned storefronts all throughout the borough. The city is missing out on a lot of property, sales and income tax. But the city is quicker to penalize the poor homeowner who might have just gone out of town on vacation for the week, than they are to penalize these absentee homeowners.
If I had anything to do with it, they would get six months, tops, to do something about it.
This is such a shame!