City of Janesville may buy delinquent properties
Photo
The city of Janesville is considering purchasing three foreclosed properties including these at 203 Linn St.
Photo
This foreclosed property at 305 S. Pearl St. in Janesville is one of three the city is considering purchasing. The city has been buying tax-foreclosed homes to help revitalize vulnerable neighborhoods.
Photo
The city of Janesville is considering purchasing three foreclosed properties including this home at 902 McKinley St.
JANESVILLE — Janesville’s city staff proposes the city buy tax-foreclosed properties in targeted areas at the cost of the delinquent property taxes.
The council will consider the suggested purchases of three such properties in the Fourth Ward at its 7 p.m. council meeting on Monday in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St.
The three homes are part of a recent acceleration by the city in its mission to buy bad homes in vulnerable neighborhoods and either rehabilitate them or tear them down. Two are described as being historically significant.
In less than a year, the city has bought at least four homes with federal stimulus money, one with parkland money, one with tax increment financing money and another with federal block grant money.
The suggested purchases at 305 S. Pearl St., 203 Linn St., and 903 McKinley St. would be funded by tax increment financing districts. Cities are allowed to use money from TIFs to revitalize nearby residential areas.
“Acquiring these properties for blight elimination or rehabilitation purposes is consistent with city plans and recent city efforts to invest in the improvement of our historical central city neighborhoods,” Jennifer Petruzzello, neighborhood services director, said.
The city would buy the three properties for a total of $18,597, plus $1,200 in closing costs. The city would get $3,797 back from the county for its share of delinquent taxes. The properties have been delinquent since 2005.
Each year, Rock County forecloses on properties that are delinquent. The city has first crack at buying the properties before they go to public auction.
The city is required to pay the price equal to the delinquent taxes, special assessments and charges, interest and closing costs.
Staff suggests that one of the properties be demolished and the other two sold with the caveat that they remain owner-occupied.
Staff has not been able to inspect the properties because the county has just given notices to vacate to the people living in two of them.
The council will be asked to earmark another $180,000 to fix two of the properties.
“That is the big question for the city council to decide,” Petruzzello said. “Is the $90,000 worth it? My feeling is we have stated within our plans and goals to increase owner-occupied (residences) and recognize the historic value of our residential structures within those neighborhoods. I think in this economic environment, it is unlikely the private sector would purchase those two properties and maintain them and preserve the historic structures.”
“This is an opportunity to acquire three properties (at a fairly low price) that are within our plan for improving the neighborhood,” she said.
If the council decides the eventual repair bill is too high, the homes could later be demolished, she said.
The properties likely would continue to be rented if they go to public auction, Petruzzello said.
Two of the homes are historically significant properties within the Fourth Ward and the city is trying to at least maintain and preserve the exterior of those properties, she said.
She included descriptions on the homes in a memo to the council:
-- 305 S. Pearl St. is a vacant single-family home built about 1880. It is 822 square feet and is one story with three bedrooms and a bath. The property is next to the railroad tracks and is zoned M-4, central general industrial. Staff recommends the structure be demolished at a cost of $8,500. The city then could either sell the land to neighbors or keep it a vacant parcel.
-- 203 Linn St. is an 1855 Greek Revival single-family rental property. The 1,548 square-foot, two-story property has three bedrooms and a bath. It is listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing structure within the Fourth Ward. The property is listed on assessor’s records as being in poor condition.
-- 903 McKinley St. is an 1855 Greek Revival home and is also a contributing structure in the district. The single-family rental property is 1,700 square feet and has three bedrooms and a bath. It is listed as being in poor to average condition on assessor’s records.
Sep 26, 2009 at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
hannah said: . or I know a real quich and cheap way burn them!!! They dont look like "keepers" to me.
Are you advocating Arson? That may be the answer in places like Detroit and Flint, but NOT here.
Two of these places may not look like "Keepers" to you, but it should be cheaper to renovate than tear down and build new on the same spot. With the railroad by the Pearl st place, that may be a lost cause as a residence.
Sep 26, 2009 at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Is the city going to buy Andeah's house next? Her's is in foreclosure also. Wouldn't that be funny if they did and razed it?!
Sep 26, 2009 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
As usual, some cannot see the forest for the trees. The people complaining about spending money to raze are the same who'd complain about the condition of these houses ten years down the road if the City did nothing now.
Sep 25, 2009 at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have a couple of questions. Are there any outstanding mortgages on these properties, or are they free and clear of any encumbrances? Not to pigeon hole, but I would be very surprised if the only debt remaining on these "homes" is the back taxes. Liens? It would be interesting to see a title search.
If the the residents of Janesville can buy the properties for roughly $15,000 net, I have some solutions.
1. Gut and burn 305 S. Pearl St. The Fire Fepartment could use it for a practice burn, I would then make an offer to all local, capable excavators. Come and remove all of the debris, bring in fill and topsoil if needed to make the lot brand new again. The payment. The city will eventually put up a small play area for children, nothing fancy,and name the space after the excavator.
2. The other two properties could be projects for the local high school and technical college. Not just hammer swingers, but computer classes using AutoCad, to draft the existing structure and improvements. Economics: to figure out how much improvements will cost. Business classes: how to sell the homes when completed, etc. There are going to be material costs, but a lot of sweat equity can do wonders. Students can take pride in helping transform a pauper into a prince.
Sep 25, 2009 at 9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
ChsMkr: That comment made my day!!!
Sep 25, 2009 at 8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
"I say put them up for sale at a price to cover back taxes, and let the free market handle these house."
"The "free market" determines that the best economic use of deteriorating, code-deficient structures is as drug houses."
This is one of the better exchanges I've seen here.
Sep 25, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
So the city buys these three, fixes up two of them, sells them to people that will actually live in them and not rent them out (if that is not already a requirement, it should be) and takes care of the property and pays the taxes every year. Sounds like a plan to me. It needs to start somewhere. If the property owners don't want to take responsibility for paying taxes and property upkeep, the city needs to step in and do something. All these properties do is bring down the value of all the surrounding homes. It would be nice if someone else would step in and buy these properties, fix them up and resell them but since that doesn't happen enough, I see no reason why the city can't do it. It's funny how there are always people in Janesville that NEVER want to see the city spend money on anything. They do need to spend money occasionally for the good of it's residents and this is definitely one of those times.
Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
My understanding is that some of the funding will come from grants that are targeted for use in this type of revitalization. I think that might also be how Beloit became involved in such projects.
Sep 25, 2009 at 5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in Beloit neighborhoods can't be over a certain ratio of owners to renters. It's a good idea, but not always enforced.
Sep 25, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not a big fan of the city wasting money, but in this case I think the best option is to buy these houses and tare them down. If the city doesn't keep up with this, we'll continue to see property values fall and neighborhoods deteriorate.
Sep 25, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
spicymarge: Beloit has been utilizing a program much like this for quite a few years now. The homes are renovated and placed on the market at an affordable price. I've seen several of the homes after the work has been completed and they are beautiful.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Creating sparks to start campfires?
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
All you have to do is look at Flint, MI to see what happens to a neighborhood that has vacant houses.....They sat back and did nothing. Do you know what Flint is notorious for?
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Expect B'moon to psychotically yammer about how the city just wants to raze lovely old homes.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Before they demolish any houses, I’d recommend the city sell salvage rights. Almost any 19th century structure has items worth salvaging, including some of the structural wood. It might only bring about $1k per property, but that would help defray the demo costs.
.
I don’t know if they’d have much success selling a house that’s in poor condition, except to a family that’s unlikely to improve the property. The city should only do so if the sales contract specifies a list of required repairs for the new owners and a timeline to do them. Some websites, like www.historicproperties.com/ , specialize in this type of property. I think it’s better to get it back into acceptable condition, and sell it to cover the costs. That would help to improve the neighbourhood, rather than let it deteriorate or maintain the status quo. The city might consider a nationally advertised auction. The Downtown Development Alliance may be able to piggyback on that to generate some publicity.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
The "free market" determines that the best economic use of deteriorating, code-deficient structures is as drug houses. It's really amazing how little a drug dealer requires in a property, besides location, location, location.
.
I am impressed with how aggressively the city is moving to protect the central city neighborhoods. The Fourth Ward especially has the lowest rate of owner occupancy in the city and it's pretty clear what that does to quality of life after a number of consecutive years. Even on blocks with spectacular homes, there can be drug houses and other blight. It's very hard to maintain a sense of community when half the residents are transient.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hallelulah! At last a city that doesn't just let their properties collapse into ghettoized drug houses. This is why I love Janesville.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah....it makes so much more sense to let these properties continue to deteriorate and become eyeshores and hazards in the neighborhood. Maybe if the city is lucky one or more of them could become a drug houses.
Sep 25, 2009 at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah.....spend more money.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.