Bull City, bulldozers, bull-oney

Tonight, the City Council chambers were filled with citizens attending a most interesting "open forum" on the issue of neighborhood improvement services' demolition program on houses that are too far burnt out, or bowed in, or otherwise unloved to merit any treatment besides the unfriendly end of your favorite heavy construction equipment. (Literally, the chambers were filled -- standing room only.)

Our program tonight began with a debate between the seemingly rational, even-handed City government against that ever-dependable and worthy adversary opponent, Strawman. This took the form of a half-hour presentation from Patrick Baker and the Neighborhood Improvement Services (NIS) staff discussing what seemed to be an unchanging series of pleas for understanding: we don't take this lightly; we don't demolish homes that aren't grave threats to neighborhood safety and property values; this is a last resort; few historic properties are affected.

Frankly, especially after the final part of the PowerPoint presentation -- in which several dozen decrepit houses that had been rehabbed or demolished were shown in rapid succession -- someone who hadn't been paying attention to the debate could have stopped right then and said, "What's the fuss about? Give me the bulldozer keys and I'll tear one down myself!"

If there was anything disheartening about the forum (and there is much that was not), it was the fact that in the minds of at least some in the City, apparently, this was the debate. Demolish houses or decompose neighborhoods. Teardowns or transients. Bulldozers today, or bullet-ridden communities tomorrow. Cool logic against the indefensible strawman.

Yet nothing could be further from the truth. Which was what made the shadowboxing at the start of the "open forum" so unnecessary and unfortunate.

Speaker after speaker from throughout the Bull City -- including representatives from Preservation Durham and the People's Alliance and Rebuild Durham, some residents of Northeast Central Durham, local bloggers Michael and Gary, even a former member of DC's housing improvement board -- did stand up to oppose wanton demolition, but that wasn't the core of their argument.

Instead, these speakers and so many like them (sentiment ran about 2-to-1 against the NIS status quo by my count) pointed out that they weren't asking to "stop demolition" for its own sake, but instead asking whether the city has the right tools to keep individual properties and the neighborhoods that encompass them from falling into blight in the first place, and to handle blighted properties in ways that actually improve neighborhoods.

No one that I heard speak against the current approach of NIS was arguing that the process did not include due consideration and process, or that it was not the result of city staff doing the best they can with the toolbox that the legislature and City Council have given them. No, the real question raised by the majority of those speaking was, why are we using only two tools -- "owner fixes" or "bulldoze"?

Can't we do better than this as a city? Can't we find solutions like receivership, or homesteading, or lien-funded city improvements to homes... all solutions mentioned tonight, and all in use in other cities around the US, or even other cities here in North Carolina?

The persistent and pervasive argument was, we're having the wrong debate -- and we're fighting the wrong battle. Vacant lots that are the post-demolition remnants of old houses may be a bit better than decaying, rotten wood structures... but only a bit better. Vacant lots don't pay much city tax, they don't attract investors and homeowners, and they sometimes still attract the same old drug dealers and prostitutes, as one young Dillard St. resident living next to a vacant lot pointed out. (See Gary's blog for a recap of his very cogent argument from tonight.)

No, the answer lies in getting these properties out of irresponsible "owners" and putting them in the hands of Durhamites, or non-profits, or first-time homebuyers, or renters, or investors... of someone who has the incentives and resources to recreate a small piece of the neighborhood quilt where a dying house sits today. Flat out, a world in which our only choice is demolition if negligent owners (shockingly) refuse to do right by their properties and their neighborhoods is not one that presents a healthy long-term direction for our city.

One of the saddest parts of tonight's meeting was watching a small number of long-term residents of blighted neighborhoods stand up asking for an immediate resumption of demolitions. Almost to a one, their argument was the same -- these collapsing structures are a pox on our neighborhoods, they've been falling down for years, something has to be done.

I agree completely. And for many of the properties this far along in the demolition process, it may be too late and may be time to bring out the wrecking ball. But it broke my heart to hear stories of houses waiting in this condition for five, seven, ten years. One elderly North-East Central Durham resident called for the resumption of demolitions as soon as possible... even while noting that this demolition program had been in effect for over two decades. (Perhaps, from his perspective, having the city do "something" is better than nothing at all. I can really hear where he's coming from on that.)

Do we really lack such creativity and civic vision to let things get this bad -- to the point where neighbors are literally begging for the bulldozer in East Durham, and Southside, and the West End? Begging for the city to continue a bad public policy because it's all the city is able to do?

In the end, these neighbors and those who oppose the current demolition policy all want the same thing -- attractive, safe, livable neighborhoods without nuisance properties. But this is the moment in time when we have to demand that Durham start getting as energized around real, long-term solutions like such distant metropolitan areas as, oh, Goldsboro, NC.

Two decades of following the same playbook, and we're still at the same lousy point where we started? Time for a new playbook. We need an active rental inspection program (which NIS has, to its credit, strongly supported). And more aggressive code enforcement. And programs to get unloved houses into the hands of those who will love and take care of them, and the neighborhoods they're part of.

Ironically, at the end of the session, NIS director Constance Stancil casually mentioned that Mayor Bell had brought back a book of "alternatives" to demolition from a recent conference of cities. How nice. With luck future open forums and committee meetings will be devoted to analyzing other cities' proven, workable solutions, rather than sticking with today's limited and poor approaches to the problem.

Time is short. After all, as City Manager Patrick Baker somewhat sheepishly mentioned at the end of the session, the current "moratorium" on teardowns has little to do with public policy. No, the Bull City just exhausted its demolition budget for the fiscal year. Sorry, no more bulldozer pay until July 1.

Let's use this break to find a new way. We may not be able to save many of today's crop of demolition-list homes. But let's save the next batch, or the one after that. And let's not leave long-term residents of Durham's poorest neighborhoods begging for bulldozers because our government lacks the willpower, imagination, or sheer verve to try something better for a change.

Comments

[GK]

Kevin

Thanks for a great recap and thoughtful analysis of the meeting. Hopefully, if anything came across by the end of the meeting, it was that the group of evil pro-blight folks who want vacant property to fester in perpetuity doesn't actually exist.

GK

[Anon]

Thanks for this post. I attended last night and felt much the same.

One brief point stuck in my mind. It was questioning the actions of Self-Help in Southside and West End. I don't remeber who said it (I think it was it actually City Staff?), but they pointed out that Self-Help has demolished over 30 houses in those neighborhoods. While Self-Help's actions are well intentioned, given all of the data that has recently surfaced on demolition, are they doing the best they can for those neighborhoods?

If as a community we are going to re-examine our current attitude towards neighborhood revitalization, we need to include all stakeholders, and bulldozers, in the discussion.

[Bull City Rising]

The comment on Self-Help came from Vickie McCoy (not sure if I got the spelling right) -- a resident, not a member of city staff, but the first speaker and someone who was vociferously defending the City's policy.

As I recall it, her comment sounded more like an insinuation to me that "no one complains" when non-profits like Self-Help tear down houses and replace them with new homes in Southside, West End and Walltown, but that "everyone complains" when blighted homes are torn down in poor neighborhoods by the City.

Personally, I thought this was an unfortunate argument to make. IMHO, to the extent that Self-Help is buying up properties that are beyond saving and tearing down to build affordable housing, it's a better end for the property than City teardowns leading to vacant lots. *But*, again, the real question comes back to why there aren't tools to prevent the houses from reaching this level of disrepair... to catch code issues earlier... to compel repair or seize the house.

I felt McCoy was trying to make an argument that only "some" teardowns matter (e.g., those that don't benefit non-profits like Self-Help). I think she couldn't be more wrong on this. What folks are calling for is better protection of neighborhoods to avoid reaching the point where tear-down, be it by the City or by non-profits, is necessary.

FWIW, I can think of few non-profits that serve their communities better than Self-Help. Even outside the housing world, one look at what their Center for Responsible Lending is accomplishing in shutting down payday lenders tells you they're the good guys. Closer to home, if not for Self-Help -- which holds the permanent/take-out financing for American Tobacco Phase I -- there wouldn't *be* an American Tobacco Historic District, since no banks would line up to fund "Goodmon's folly."

[GK]

I wasn't around to hear this comment, but it was probably Vivian McCoy, who, along with Melvin Whitley, heads up Partnership for a New East Durham, one of the two primary neighborhood groups in East Durham (the other being Uplift East Durham).

People in West End and Southside are quite concerned about Self-Help's preference for demolition over rehab, and many of us have been trying hard to convince Self-Help to take a different approach. But it is apples and oranges - Self-Help is a private entity that owns the property they are demolishing, and they are primarily using their money and Duke's money to do so. If we could get local historic districts in West End and Southside, it might be possible to convince them to do otherwise, but there is no policy in the city that disallows the demolition of a structure by a private entity - even local districts only allow the historic preservation commission to enforce a one year delay. Lastly, although I think rehab has a broad spectrum of advantages over demolition and new construction, they are at least producing an occupied structure at the site rather than a vacant lot.

GK

[Bull City Rising]

Agreed 110%, Gary. And thanks for the correction/clarification on who was speaking.

I too would like to see Self-Help having to demo and rebuild less and less often... which comes back, again, to this root cause of the City taking appropriate steps to keep properties from entering blight or finding new ways out, rather than relying on the same old/same old as it has for so long.

[Michael Bacon]

Great summary, Kevin. I left some comments over at Gary's post on the matter, but most of what you said was right on.