Eric * - 2004-10-21 09:54:53
The landlord who owns the apartment building in question is David Kircher. Mr. Kircher is the emobodiment of sewage seepage.
He "owns" the Richardson building, but is about to lose it to Barnes & Barnes in court. Mr. Barnes spent $107K cleaning it out last year by removing sixty-some dumpsters full of garbage. Mr. Kircher refused to pay him and will lose the property to B&B as a result. If that isn't enough, Mr. Kircher set fire to the property at 107 E. Cross St. when he lost his CofO earlier this year. Because of its location, he is holding up any progress on the Richardson block because that house is prime parking. B&B can't make a business case for restoring the Richardson Block because of the money they would have to pay to buy that property from Mr. Kircher in order to have off-street parking.
The property has been so poorly taken care of that architects say that 75% of the building's face would have to be removed in order to stabilize it. It's sad to say, but that pre-Civil War era building is lost.
A lot of people like to bitch about Water Street, but they should be attacking the real roadblocks to Ypsilanti's revival.* * * * * * * * * * * *
Eric *, you make a good point in your last para. You're right. My jaw dropped when I read about the effluence being pumped right into the parking lot--and a resident, not the landlord, alerting the authorities.
The additional information about this man is equally startling, including the setting of the fire, which conceivably could have injured someone.
I am quite sorry to hear about the neglect of the Richardson building, but (forgive my ignorance please) I don't know where is is. Where is this old building?
Thanks for the extra info Eric *.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 10:05:21
The Richardson building or block is the building at the corners of Cross and River streets. I'm sure you pass it twice every day. Hopefully this picture will show up.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura again - 2004-10-21 10:06:08On rereading: hmm, why did Barnes clean out the Richardson building if Kirchner owned it? And why did the building have 60-odd (!) dumpsters of garbage in it? Where did the garbage come from?* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 10:08:38
Barnes & Barnes was/is going to turn the property into retail/condos/apartments. They were leasing the property from Kircher (I think). The building had all of that trash because it's been neglected for decades.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 10:10:50
Oh, I thought of that building as the Thompson building. I love this building. I do pass it twice every day. I've noticed over the past six months that the decay is accelerating. I noticed one new window broken the other day, some additional plywood went up within the last month, cracks are visible in the structure, and it seems near collapse.
I'd heard about the dumpsters full of stuff being taken out, and wondered if you wre discussing what I knew as the Thompson (Richardson) building.
Eric *, would you know if Barnes & B. currently waiting to get "official" ownership of this building via the court case--is there even the slenderest chance to save this battered old jewel?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura, correcting herself - 2004-10-21 10:13:27
Oh, sorry--you already told me that B&B was indeed about to get ownership. Good. I do hope they have the werewithal to shore this poor old building up.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 10:13:43
My mistake. It is the Thompson building. Sorry for the confusion.
As far as saving the building, it comes down to money and a sound business case. My opinion is just that, but I can't see how it can be saved unless someone was willing to lose one or two million dollars on it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 10:16:04
I imagine you're right. If revived, it could be the "third side" of Depot Town, but I'm not sure if there's enough foot traffic there to support a whole new raft of businesses. But as for housing, I think it'd be great--after the one, two, or doubtless more millions are spent to bring it up to code.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again - 2004-10-21 10:18:32
Eric *, how did such an irresponsible person wind up with his hands on so much property in town? I mean, after the jail time (!) for code violations (would love to know what kinds of code violations) you'd think the city would somehow stop him from wrecking additional properties.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-10-21 10:41:52
If recall correctly, B&B is a court-appointed receiver for some of Kircher's properties after the court found Kircher guilty of all manner of code violations and Kircher refused to correct them. This meant that though Kircher still owned the properties, he didn't control them and B&B could clean them up on Kircher's dime. Apparently Kircher is refusing to pay so B&B can foreclose on the property to assume ownership.
Laura, I think Kircher acquired many of these properties before he went to jail. Even at that, real estate sales are private transactions and governmental units have no legal power to stop them.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 10:46:14
That is very helpful, Tom, and clears up the relationships further. One wonders why K., who apparently has some $ at least, allowed things to slide that far. I am holding out hope for the Thompson Bldg. once it's safely in B&B's hands.
That is true, real estate transactions are private. * * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-10-21 10:55:22
I don't know them at all, but B&B seem to responsible people (they are father and son, I think). I hope that they can make the Thompson Bldg work, but it looks pretty far gone to me. Though I live in AA Twp, I am at the Sidetrack somewhat regularly and I've always thought it is such a shame that the Thompson Bldg was so neglected.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura again - 2004-10-21 10:55:26
Update: Ypsi twp will seek criminal charges against K. for the sewage incident, (turns out it was 100,000 gallons over 3 days!) says a new story, which also reveals that K. served his past jail time on weekends. How convenient. Wonder if everyone gets the same consideration.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 10:56:55
Oops, Tom, you beat me to the comments...you are right, it seems to me--the building has been allowed to slide perhaps a bit beyond the line of reviving it; I hope not. * * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 11:32:24
Mister Kircher began buying properties after the confusion 60s and into the turbulence of the 70s. Property after property was abandoned, many not even boarded up. The revolution was in full swing. Gunfire across Cross Street frightened slumlords away. Except Kircher. He has provided cheap and free hovels to the poor and indigent since then. When he can get ignorant suckers to pay rent, he keeps the sleazy empire afloat (albeit in sewage). He has gobbled up some gems that no one else would touch.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 11:35:50
...and the house on Cross behind the Thompson building was enveloped in smoke again last night. Fire trucks and police cars blocked the road while firefighters scrambled in search of flame.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 11:35:55
He provided cheap and free housing "since then" (to date?) to poor people in Ypsi?* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 11:38:41
It seems like Kircher does not provide free rent as much as his rent collection practices are like his maintenance practices: slipshod.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 11:40:14
Kirchner: hmm, weird. This guy is certainly an enigma.
Well, that house behind the Thompson is in bad shape--and has been for many months now, as you know. A real eyesore. I've been walking home from the bus stop a couple times this past week, and on Monday I think there was some guy on a ladder poking around in the 2nd-floor hole on the house's west side, facing the Thompson. Something about it seemed weird, but I didn't stick around.
The whole place is boarded up, unless it's open around back, so I wonder why/how it caught on fire.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 11:41:28
...but I have known of cases where people could not rent more legitimate properties because of lack of references and deposits who were able to get at least a leaky roof over their heads from Kircher.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 11:42:16
More to this man than meets the eye, it seems.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 11:42:31
Kircher provides free rent in as much as the Thompson Block and the house behind it are not properly secured. People / vagrants / downtrodden / misfortunate / homeless (pick your PC term), spend the night in those buildings. The boards covering the windows are loose. Last night's fire was likely the result of a squatter. I'd bet the people in that neighborhood are *thrilled* about that.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 11:45:00
People are spending the night in the Thompson Building?
That would be...scary as hell.
But I've seen the plywood ripped away/loosened from the ground-floor windows, from time to time, on the south side.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 11:59:35
Vagrants, derelicts, thugs, and urban explorers will rip iron bars off a building to get in and perform acts of havoc, find a place to sleep it off, or satisfy their curiosity. Plywood is easy. A society with an emphasis on property must expect a counterculture to disrespect it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 12:03:53
well, the urban explorer code of honor, if you will, prohibits any such destruction...* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 12:10:52
Does it prohibit theft? Regardless, I can't imagine the people who live next to that building appreciate it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 12:12:43
Yes, it prohibits theft, with the caveat that if the place is actually being destroyed around you, things can be salvaged that would otherwise be lost to history.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 12:21:08
Salvaged for the good of the community like the Ypsilanti Historical Museum? Or salvaged for the good of someone's living room? That code sounds pretty tricky.
Kircher owns a lot of formerly-beautiful buildings in the area that are now in shambles or well on their way.
302 E. Cross
107 E. Cross
313 Washtenaw
43 S. Summit
49 S. Summit
50 S. Summit
46 S. Summit
And about fifteen others. Sad. Sad. Sad.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 12:29:35
I haven't yet run into any concerned historical-plaque types during explorations. That not only gives the impression that they weren't terribly concerned about preserving blue-collar Ypsi history, it also eliminates the opportunity for any such people to piously criticize me later.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 12:36:26
In my discussions with James Mann over the years, he wishes so-called "collectors" would be more responsible and donate their booty to the YHM. When I told him about the stuff that was pilfered from the paper mill he nearly cried.
If your rationale for stealing is that it can't be near a historical-marker, I guess there are only four or five sites in Ypsilanti that aren't free game.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 12:39:06
Oh, Eric, we started off so well today, civilly discussing the "Richardson" Building or whatever tomfool name you gave it...I guess it couldn't last, eh? I tried.
I really tried.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 15:55:33
A couple of weeks ago I read an urban explorer's account of looking through (while without permission, entering from the sidewalk through a hole in the wall) Motown's old building. Scattered about, the report said, were invoices, letters, and other business and personal material on paper.
Last week I heard TV news reporting that Martha Reeves brought suit against ebay because of an auction for some similar item, one which had Reeves' Social Security number on it.
It's stupid to desert a building for the LaLaLa-Di-Dah of California and leave such crap behind. Finders keepers losers weepers? Seems better to sell it to a collector than to let some crack addict wipe his crack with it.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 16:00:49
However, Eric is right to question it. It's a complicated ethical issue, one I'm not totally comfortable with myself. It's a question of weighing the kinds of considerations you mentioned. The Soc. Security # makes that particular example clearly over the line. At the least, the number should have been blacked out. Also, I think the motive needs to be taken into account. Profiteering on eBay is different than trying in whatever imperfect way to save a fragment of history.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 16:30:27
My only complaint is if you are going to take stuff off of private property, it should be to share with your community.
Because I have no access to what you have taken, those artifacts are lost. I will never see them. They could have been buried under tons of dirt in a landfill somewhere and my access to them is the same. At least if you gave them to the YHM, people could share in this history. Ypsilanti's history belongs to the community. It doesn't belong to individuals.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 16:31:21
How do I know where the sellers of my milk and salt bottles got them? Should I give them over to Mister Mann because their provenance is unknown? I can't even prove the chain of acquisition of stuff I have from State Hospital auctions, having lost the tickets. Maybe I stole it.
I admit that I've picked stuff up from junk heaps and waste places. "Liberating it," Mister Twain might have said.
I once tried to find out the chain of possession of an item which an "antique" dealer had for sale, because I knew where it came from long ago, and the son of the original owner wanted to know. While dealers in used stuff are often required by law to keep records about these things and make them available to authorities, the dealer wouldn't do it and the authorities didn't care.
So, yeah, there are questions. We'd certainly keep written provenance for Warhols, Dine, Mapplethorpe, Ono, Picasso, and junk like that. The nickel-and-dime stuff, oh well. I'm keepin' it as long as there's a path to get through it.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 16:35:00
...and anyone who wants to see what we've got must first apply for an appointment. Otherwise, Beware of Dog.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 16:42:01
...and anyone who has a dump truck and a loader, please lend me them. I want that township dirt for my soil collection.
With that, I go to unload the truck's cargo of beautiful hay from Manchester. What a thrilling ride through the countryside I enjoyed. While I didn't steal anything save glances, I don't have a receipt for the hay from the pleasant gentlemen-farmers-couple who took my cash.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 16:46:20
It's a very grey area indeed, but isn't there something said about trespassing onto private property? I have an old Witte engine sitting covered by a tarp behind my garage that I plan on restoring soon. I sure hope no one liberates it one night.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 16:50:09
That is not a valid comparison. Your home is not slated for immediate destruction, does not have the historical value of the mill, and the engine is infinitely more valueable than something like a rusty old discarded tool.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 17:54:11
I would argue that it's exactly the same. You went onto private property and took something. You are trying to draw a line at some arbitrary monetary value. Homeless people used to come up onto my back porch and take the deposits I had in my recycling bin. If they only take fifty cents worth of stuff a week, are they justified?
I like this topic of urban exploration because it sounds like such a victimless crime. Those who explore the Thompson block must first gain entry by removing plywood or some other temporary barrier. While they think they do no harm, homeless or thugs can now gain access. If you lived a few houses away from that building, how would you feel? Maybe the paper mill is different because it was away from the residential area, but it's these rationalizations that make it a decent topic of discussion.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 18:38:16
I've stood in the dark awaiting the return of crack-smoking vandals at a house in Ypsilanti. I carried a hammer. I was willing to protect my property with the ferocity of a dung bettle for its ball. I didn't worry about urban explorers. I'm not even a footnote to any history. To any destitute women, children, and cripples I would have forked over my deposit bottles, and perhaps the scant change in my pocket. Times have changed. Now I just sic the dog on anybody who crosses me. I don't shoot because the mutt is afraid of loud reports.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-21 18:43:22
I can spell beetle. and spittle. and belittle. And I believe that saving a discarded item from the landfill is not the same as nicking stuff from someone's porch or backyard.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 18:54:25
Of course it's not. It's a question of some absolutist, Platonic principle about theft versus reality. And you don't paint yourself in a very flattering light, Eric *, to begrudge some needy person, who hasn't one millionth of the luxury you enjoy just by virtue of your owning a home, some of your sticky cans. Were I perfect, I'd say for shame. You or I could be that person tomorrow if circumstances turned against us, and I'd hope I'd be able to salvage 17 cans from some person's recycling bin to buy a $1.69 tuna sandwich at a party store for my meagre dinner.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 19:06:53
Isn't a more a question of whether or not I was asked if I would part with my cans? I bet there a lot of people who don't have mountain bikes either. I hope I'm not an ogre for not wanting to donate it to another without my permission.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 19:09:30
Wow. Golden Rule time, dude. It's a discarded can that the store will recycle. No net loss. Not a bike. Invalid comparison.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-10-21 19:15:32
I keep my recycling on the back porch so it's not in my house. I like to get my deposits back too. Isn't there something to be said about private property? Can I want my privacy and ask that people (regardless of socio-economic standing) not venture onto my back porch? I think you're missing the point and are stuck in the minutiae. Next topic. This one's been beaten to death.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-21 19:19:36
I don't think it's been beaten to death. I think it's a very interesting discussion. A lot depends on how your house relates to the street. In my case, I fenced off the lot. I'd be mighty upset to find someone by my back door. But if it's a porch pretty near the street, that's a somewhat different matter. Of course you are entitled to privacy on your property. But this person isn't seeking to violate it--just to survive.* * * * * * * * * * * * Murph - 2004-10-21 23:54:23
The urban explorer types that I'm friends with (slash am) are "take only pictures, leave only footprints" types. If you can't enter a building without causing damage or exposing the building to harm, don't enter. This rules out, say, prying off plywood. (but, of course, allows entering where somebody else already has.) Collecting is right out, though I don't have experience in situations where the building (and all of its contents) are about to be destroyed.* * * * * * * * * * * * Murph - 2004-10-21 23:59:43
Though, in my opinion, a building's contents can probably be fair game when they're to the point of warming up the wrecking ball. At the point when a building is to be destroyed, the owners have declared it to have no value to them (and, in fact, to have negative value to them, since they need to destroy it to create value). If it has no value, or constitutes a nuisance, you are doing no harm to the "owner" by taking it. They have relinquished ownership of it. The case of museum-worthy artifacts being removed from buildings just before destruction? Look at it this way: if the urban explorers swipe it, it has some very small chance of making its way to a museum in the future. If the urban explorers don't take it, it has exactly zero chance of ending up in a museum--it'll be crushed in the rubble and hauled off to the dump. A curator should be happy to hear that artifacts were recovered from a building just before it was destroyed--tracking things down and acquiring them from the urban explorers would be much easier than wishing them back out of the rubble.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-22 08:51:05
Murph, thanks for your thoughts. 1. They were indeed warming up the wrecking ball: in fact, part of the site was already destroyed. 2. The material saved is not museum-quality--just nostalgic value.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2004-10-22 10:43:41
Why Kircher doesn't unload his properties and retire to Florida mystifies me.
Amy, a low-paid library clerk, said of her K. apartment, "I couldn't afford to live anywhere else."
Michael was thrilled to have the freedom to ditz up his digs with delicate decor in his K. abode with no landlord pestering him. It even got him a new boyfriend.
Melissa lived on Perrin Street while juggling expense of school, hassle of retail, and an expensive boyfriend. She laughed when the light fixture in her bathroom filled with water. K.'s henchman fixed it somewhat promptly after it burst.
A young woman whom I only knew of second-hand was evicted from public housing because of male family members who were dopers. Without references or deposits, Kircherville was her only resort. And her little tykes, too, and "I'll pay that rent just as soon as I can."
Kevin as an entry-level chemist had a huge two bedroom place with a balcony and no snooping landlord. He could wander naked after his shower while he towelled the beads of water from his glistening behind.
Certainly I ain't saying Kircher is a saint. Or even an overall credit to his community. But he ain't a devil, either.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-10-22 10:45:35
Thanks for providing information for a more accurate picture of him, Raymond. * * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: