|
Comments:
raymond - 2005-03-02 17:55:30 I couldn't tell you. But from this layperson's point of view, with the over 100 vacant buildings in Ypsi in mind, (!) it seems like there might be a more proactive, much more narrowly focused approach that targets only the worst offenders first and "worries about heaven later" as they say.* * * * * * * * * * * * raymond - 2005-03-02 18:32:03 What's wrong with a vacant building? If the owner wants to drive by and admire it, stop by and contemplate the cosmos, or go in occasionally and drink beer, what the hell? Why not? Other issues of safety and compliance are other issues irrelevant to vacancy.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-02 19:58:40 There's nothing wrong, to my way of seeing it, with a vacant building that is kept up so that neighbors don't mind it. An eyesore might warrant a legitimate complaint if it depresses nearby property values. You are right, the issue of "safety" isn't necessarily related to a condition of vacancy. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2005-03-02 20:09:18 East Cross Street made an astute analysis in his assessment of the staffing situation. His position is that adding the VBO would stretch even thinner the severely limited resources of the two people who tend to ordinances and building inspections, thus, overall, making it a bit easier for those who would flout an ordinance. I think East Cross Street makes a lot of sense. It's easy to say, "oh, those yucky vacant buildings, we should pass an ordinance" and harder to do your homework at get to the root of the problem, as ECS has done. At any rate.* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |