Fairbanks abatement program tackles neighborhood eyesore
Published Saturday, June 28, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!
FAIRBANKS — The house at 2218 Mercier St. used to belong to a senior citizen who recently passed away.
It stands no more, as city building officials tore down the dilapidated structure piece by piece on Friday morning.
A crew of city workers was at the site at 7:30 a.m. Friday morning and had the structure hauled away and the trees on the lot trimmed by 3 p.m.
A few months ago, the outside of the tiny house built in 1954 boasted fairly clean white walls and faded toxic-yellow trim. The interior of the house would have given Martha Stewart a heart attack.
Boxes of rotted clothing and other debris stood in piles nearly 5 feet high, brushing against molded walls covered in lead paint. Asbestos fell like snow from the ceiling, only to land on rotted carpet and bare flooring that reeked of human and animal waste.
Such evidence also dotted the lawn surrounding the home and fed large numbers of vermin, which were the sole occupants of the house.
But such messes are easily repaired, and the interior wasn’t the primary concern.
According to Steve Shuttleworth, building official for the city of Fairbanks, from a structural point of view, the house was an inspector’s worst nightmare.
Shuttleworth has been inspecting buildings for more than 20 years, and this particular house was one of the worst he’s seen.
“I’ve dealt with nearly 75 houses since being here, and this one just about tops ’em all,” Shuttleworth said.
The north wall had rotted, and in some cases the exterior studs and sheathing were missing as they had disintegrated.
The southeast half of the roof failed.
Interior load-bearing walls showed signs of bending to the point that a light smack could have taken out the entire side of the house. No vapor barrier was present throughout the house, which explained the rotting.
Lead paint, or what was left of it, decorated the walls and surfaces, and scraps of it also lay on the floor.
None of the hazards seemed to bother the many vagrants who took shelter in the house, or the residents of the trailer parked in the driveway that was suspect to heavy drug traffic, according to local witnesses and police officials.
But none of that stopped Mayor Terry Strle from checking out the house with Shuttleworth.
“It was really unbelievable,” she said of the experience.
Strle recalled hearing about these homes before she became mayor and wondered why they weren’t taken care of sooner. She quickly learned that city building ordinances and the expenses involved with the process often slow the effort to remove them.
Shuttleworth referred to the expensive process as throwing Cheerios down the well, meaning the costs came directly from the city’s budget.
“The problem is the city is full of houses like this,” Shuttleworth said.
Shuttleworth has a list of about 10 or 12 that are on his radar.
However, the cost of safely removing houses from the city takes a toll on city finances, as the city is often left holding a vacant property with a lien on its value.
The Mercier Street house abatement process began May 2.
Since then, Shuttleworth has accumulated an inch-thick stack of paperwork that gives him the legal right to remove the house.
“We can’t take down just any eyesore in town,” Shuttleworth said. “It’s a very grueling process, and we have to go through many steps to ensure that it’s done safely and without infringing on property rights,” Shuttleworth said.
Some of the costs to the city include an asbestos and lead paint survey and removal, and excavation of water utilities — which includes street digging and asphalt repair.
Renting equipment and general labor costs also need to be budgeted, as well as landfill tipping fees.
That’s not to mention any administrative work from the building department, public works or even initial inspections from the police department, all of which aren’t included in the final cost.
“The official cost isn’t in just yet, but we’re estimating the project to cost around $20,000,” Shuttleworth said.
The crew expects to deal with a few more homes with the help of living owners before winter hits.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Story is strange. Was the senior citizen living there as the deterioration took place? Story sez the vermin were the only occupants, but then it says that vagrants occupied the house.
How could this have gone on so long? Surely there were arrests on the property. Doesn't Fairbanks have a three strikes law that condemns (might not be the right word) after three arrests or brushes with the law?
If the city puts a lien on the property, they will collect the bill when the property is sold, if done correctly, they should recover all costs. But knowing how government works this is probably too much to ask. The borough could also place a lien on the property for the tipping fees at the land fill, why should the city pay the fees?
"all of which aren't included in the final cost." WHY NOT??? Looks like another case of letting someone who knows how to run a project do it. After doing over "75" of these and we stil do not know how much it will cost? Equiptment rentals (?) general labor and tipping fees are all known factors, figuering a budget for this should not be rocket science. It is good to see the junk go , but there are better ways to "skin this cat".
evenk- They have a nuisance property law that was used to finally declare this property condemned not a three strike law against the property. The senior citizen that lived there would not move to an assisted living center and owned the property. Instead of forcing the woman from her home they let her live out her life where she wanted and then started the process to condemn. Like they said, it was not a short process, it was a bit time consuming. In the interim the property was vacant of ownership and "valid" occupancy and was being used as a flop spot by vagrants (aka homeless).
Bugger- the reason that there is no set amount is there are always hidden costs. They obviously knew about the asbestos, but it did say that they would have to do a lead paint test. Depending on results would change which way you had to go at removal possibly having varied costs. Point being, you never know what you will find in someone elses treasure chest and they are a government entity that is going to have to do everything by the book so the cost will be higher. Right of the top, how do you charge for office labor used prior to a committee meeting that authorized for the condemning? That would be an unrecoverable cost I am sure. I am sure that they are doing the best job at cost cutting that they can because they are really watching the dime (ie the street lights being shut off) so I guess it isnt rocket science but it does have a lot of areas that you have give your best guess at with out hard figures.
Why don't you allow the Fairbanks Fire Department to
get some experience in and have a controlled burn, of the
dilapidated old buildings you want torn down? Then,
just suck up the asses with a street cleaner. Most
everything is destroyed,
it will cheaper, FBK will save money, use it as a tax
write off for FFD training and people
could roast hot dogs and party, if they wanted to.
burke
Burke - That happens sometimes, but because of various laws and EPA regulations burning the building can actually make things more expensive. Anything even remotely hazardous would have to be removed from the house, including all the lead paint and asbestos before it could be burned.
Considering how expensive asbestos removal is, it can easily make it more expensive to prepare to burn down rather then just knocking it down.
This structure also wasn't a good candidate because the structural integrity was so compromised. Even if they could remove the asbestos within a budget, I imagine it may not have been safe to do so without serious risk of building collapse.
Also, when houses are used for live fire training one of the biggest assets of that training is the ability for firefighters who may be newer to be able to "make entry" into the house while it is on fire and practice search and rescue, and interior fire attack something that wasn't possible with this house. From the sound of this article I don't think the house would have stood more than 5 minutes after being lit on fire. There would have been too great of a risk of roof/wall collapse for the fire fighters to be in the building.
So yeah, it's a good idea, and it does happen, but unfortunately it's not as easy as just setting a torch to the place.
10 or 20 houses? There are probably loads more, but not just in the City. I applaud these efforts to help clean up the city, ... but wasn't it just yesterday that the city was complaining about energy costs and street lights? Now they are fronting 20K+ for one property clean-up?
Sounds like the city could benefit from a 3rd party operations auditor.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.