Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BeSmarter2022 t1_ixw0wu2 wrote

Reply to comment by Rubysdad1975 in Five houses targeted for demolition in Mount Vernon historic district by Rubysdad1975

They are not perfectly good buildings, the article says they are dilapidated and can’t be restored. It says the church was gifted these buildings and has paid a lot of money to try to keep them up, but they are structurally not sound. The other thing to consider is you know what happens when there’s a vacant building in the city. I do think it’s very sad but it is also not right to force the church to keep this up when they are saying it is near impossible.

6

okdiluted t1_ixwt6hz wrote

someone broke down the cost, and iirc the church has spent about $1750 per building per year on them, which is really barely anything and hardly enough to cover upkeep. they're allowing them to fall into disrepair via neglect, honestly.

24

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_ixwu2vs wrote

> They are not perfectly good buildings, the article says they are dilapidated and can’t be restored.

No, the article says the church claims they are dilapidated and can’t be restored. So let's just say I'm not just gonna take them at their word on this.

18

pk10534 t1_ixxmedx wrote

What even is the insinuation here lol? You think the church decided years ago that it wanted a garden so badly it needed to purposely let these buildings rot and cross their fingers the zoning board would approve their changes?

1

todareistobmore t1_ixxvkff wrote

You're really on one about this for some reason, but the difference between you and a church or, say, JHU, is that a tax-exempt entity has every incentive to acquire adjacent property without a plan to use it, because there's no cost to carry it until a plan is developed.

And if those properties should fall into disrepair before there's a plan to use them, so much the better--I'm guessing JHU's going to hear a lot less opposition about whatever they decide to build at the corner of 29th & Maryland now that it's just a vacant lot than they would've while the houses were still habitable.

7

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_ixz866t wrote

Well the only party here in the article claiming they are 'dilapidated' is the parry that wants to tear them down for redevelopment. If that's all the proof you require to believe it.... wanna buy a bridge, trust me bro?

2

pk10534 t1_ixzgd1a wrote

Just to be clear, your theory is that the church actually has been spending money to properly maintain these buildings over the past few decades and that they’re in perfectly adequate condition, but that the church decided it needed a garden so badly that it’s decided to fabricate this whole story of the buildings being dilapidated? Yeah ok.

0

fakeguru2000 t1_iy04r4y wrote

I don’t think 91k for 5 four story buildings even qualify that they took diligent care. It probably took that amount to secure the buildings. 91k won’t even rehab a three story row house in the city.

5

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_ixzjbss wrote

I don't have any 'theory' other than I require 3rd party confirmation of claims other than from the party most benefiting from the claim. Just like I wouldn't 'trust' a used car dealer about the state of a car until I got another mechanic to look it over.

But hey, you do you. Believe those Amazon reviews, don't get a house you're looking to buy inspected (just trust the seller) and please DM me about some land I have to sell. It never floods.

3

pk10534 t1_iy05w0k wrote

You’re being so facetious right now that it’s absurd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying to not verify their claim. But your allegations still seem unlikely at best.

0

TheCaptainDamnIt t1_iy0whg2 wrote

I’m not making any allegations, I’m just not believing theirs without further proof. Now would you like to buy a 2003 Honda Accord with only 465,877 miles? Runs perfect, never had a problem. Cash only and you can’t see it first. I mean you wouldn’t ‘make allegations’ against me by not believing me right.

3

pk10534 t1_iy0xmhc wrote

Buddy the analogy is not really working since nobody said you can’t check on the status of the buildings. I encourage the city to do that. So you’re just not really making the point you think you are. The fact that a possibility exists this church is lying (which you’ve yet to give a credible reason for) does not mean it’s likely.

1

umbligado t1_iy0w7zh wrote

I went ahead and visually inspected the buildings, comments below. In short, these buildings are in a frightful state, and have likely been like that for many many years.

1

Electrical_Appeal_21 t1_ixwjhxf wrote

Right. People complain just to complain here. People don’t like the ugly vacants, but when something is done to beautify the city, it’s a problem. I swear, everyone loves to complain about change AND the status quo in this city. Hopeless. Miserable. Oblivious. People here can be so weird.

−6

todareistobmore t1_ixwmwxu wrote

Midtown-Belvedere doesn't have vacants problem, this is just degrowth.

13