Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cunninghams_right t1_ixy0o1o wrote

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

I have rehabbed houses and seen many rehabbed. these are totally salvageable. row-houses in fed hill have gotten their basements dug, foundations underpinned, stripped to the brick, floors raised, new stairs put in, new roof, all new plumbing, all new electrical, exterior walls strapped and more for less than $200k. these places would definitely be worth more than that if they had the same treatment. calling them structurally unsound is bullshit because it's actually quite easy to reinforce walls and foundations and to repoint bricks.

6

umbligado t1_iy0wwkc wrote

I really don’t think they are. Feel free to see my comments below after viewing the property from behind.

1

Cunninghams_right t1_iy1g9g9 wrote

if they really aren't, the church should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for being a public nuisance because we all know that if they sold them, they would have been turned into apartments or homes and been salvaged decades ago. that is a high rent part of town and it's obvious they intentionally let them fall apart.

4

umbligado t1_iy1ozym wrote

OK. You’ve obviously left the world of the reasonable at this point. No thanks.

0

CaptainObvious110 t1_iy1o2pm wrote

Oh that's good to know

1

Cunninghams_right t1_iy23ow6 wrote

someone else mentioned that wall in the back has collapsed, which certainly does complicate things from when I wrote this. I still think it could be saved, but once a wall goes, it's much harder because you have to get a structural engineering company to make sure it's safe to work on. if it's not safe to work on, it's much harder. I'm so irritated that the church would let them get that far gone.

2

CaptainObvious110 t1_iy29f7x wrote

Ok, thanks for the update. My question now becomes: "What condition were those buildings in when they were first given to the church?"

If they were already in poor condition why did that happen in the first place and why would they be allowed to be dumped on someone else?

1

Cunninghams_right t1_iy2bzyn wrote

they were definitely in fine condition for a long time. google photography shows they were not collapsed brick in the back until recently. someone probably sat on them, as Baltimore deadbeat homeowners do, hoping property values would go up. then they probably donated to make the tax write-off. the church was fine with just letting them collapse because the ~90k they've paid over the years is well worth it for a nice empty lot they can use to bring in more revenue for weddings.

2