Norfolk, Portsmouth: Blight law hinders redevelopment efforts

How about some history from the Pilot?

In a 5/23/06 article Meghan Hoyer wrote that several community meetings were held in Cradock and that: "a few blocks bore the brunt of the residents' wrath - the area around Cushing Street...So when the city began plans to revitalize the neighborhood, officials knew where to start."

So this isn't really about a "band of buddies" coming to the City and saying 'get us cheap land', is it? It's about a community identifying the area most responsible for breeding crime and destroying quality of life, and the City trying to implement a serious plan to address the problem. Except the City is having difficulty doing that because of the new law.

Eminent domain is a complex issue. Take a property rights position if you want, but you have to recognize the negative consequences. Libeling govt officials doesn't make them go away.

Its tragic that so many residents are willing to champion and subsidize blighted neighborhoods that are so dangerous that drug dealing and prostitution are the only "business" opportunities. Neither of these activities generate any tax revenue and since over 75% of these properties are absentee landlord rentals, the residents are also not paying any property taxes. These properties and criminal residents are a giant sucking drain... you're a fool if you think a coat of paint has any relevence here.

I'm stunned all of you are so willing to take tools away from police and hand your tax dollars over to fund housing and freebies for individuals hiding out in areas even the police are afraid to walk through. Where is the outrage?!

Try driving through Norfolk's Texas Streets after dark and then tell me you'd like to invest in property there.

I hear all the property rights folks, but having lived in Ocean View I saw what blight does to both encourage crime and further more blight. It's not a rich verses poor nor a white versus blue collar thing, it just a matter of stopping a cancer that threatens the progress of both Norfolk and Portsmouth. I don't care what your income is, there's no excuse to live like a pig, sale drugs, commit other crimes all while dragging down the surrounding area--all blighted area trademarks. The law needs to be amended and these cities allowed to combat this plague before they're consumed in the ensuing cesspool.

Casey I think you are confused. NRHA and the City of Norfolk held much of Ocean View hostage over the past ten or so years. I am probably over-simplifying but in some cases, property owners were told a project was in the works and then it would be put on hold. With a project lingering overhead, a property can lose value.

Just kidding! Her salary is probably between $80,000 and $110,000 a year, since that is the going rates for city development directors in Virginia. The interesting part of the picture with the article is the boarded up house behind Warren. It appears from the picture that if the house had a little attention (repaired board here or there, some shrubs) it would be a very nice house. Yet, this is the kind of house Warren would like to take from the homeowners and give to her developer friends. They intern could build some snap together piece of junk that will be falling apart in ten or fifteen years. The house behind her has solid lumber and was built to last. What her developer friends will put up will look nice for a couple of years but fall apart quickly so the cycle can start all of for the next Warren and their friends. The cities have no business trying to condemn entire blocks or neighborhoods due to one or two bad houses.

...I may not have spelled that correctly, but anyway, about 3 years ago, a local magazine asked local elected officials what they were most proud of being a part of to better this place. Thelma Drake stated she was most proud of her work on eminent domain laws, "which used to take up to 5 years for a property owner to have to wait to find out weather or not they were going to lose their property." Excuse me? THAT is what you are most proud of? Shortening the amount of time it takes for us to lose our property? Am I the only person who has a problem with that statement? Vote, people. Vote.

The outcome of Kelo v. New Brunswick was strongly anti-property rights. The Supreme Court ruled that private land could be taken away and given to private developers for any reason which fell under the broad term of "economic development." If you own a $100,000 house and a developer wants to build a $250,000 house, then your house is fair game for seizure under Kelo.

Bush's order prevented the Federal Government from taking property for private individuals' gains. It is irrelevant to this story, as this deals with a municipal government.

In the aftermath of Kelo, property rights strengthening laws were proposed in dozens of states. Virginia's passed, and prompted this story.

I am curoius what is meant by "Fair Market Value" by Ms. Warren regarding what the city will pay in condeming a livable house. I get the feeling that it does NOT mean the Tax Value since Portsmouth overinfalted that over the last 3 years before the drop in the housing market. Nothing like getting the "shakedown" by the city twice, first in overvalued taxes you pay and than in given a "Fair Market Value" that is below the overvalued tax assesment for your so-called condemened house. Thank God for Bush signing the Kelo Decision into an Executive order in 2006 or all our homes would be up for grabs in the eyes of Ms. Warren.

Kathy appears to be a very attractive woman. I doubt the job pays the $$$$$$ that everyone thinks it does. I can't believe she walks around the steets of Portsmouth though by her self.

Thank you for this article. After reading the heart-warming story of the Cutchins in yesterday's Pilot Magazine, and seeing the hideous structure of the old Afton Theater behind them, I was embarrassed for our community and disgusted with the owner of the theater for allowing it to continue to stand condemned. The structure has been condemed for almost ten years with no reprecussion for PRHA. The residents of the neighborhood are tired of the condition of the business exteriors along Afton Square, with the exception of the florist which is lovely. We will petition the City govenment and put pressure on the owners of the establishments to see it is taken care of. BEWARE business owners of Cradock! Crime is being taken care of by the Blue and Brown. The neighbors will see to it the condition of these so-called "businesses" are cleaned up! Money talks. Fellow residents: Boycott the businesses until their exteriors are no longer an insult to the neighborhood.

I owned a beautifully restored 1906 Victorian in Park Place that was a wonderful house. It was huge and I loved it, but the down side was that even though most of the houses on my block had been restored, Norfolk PD did nothing about the shootings and gangs that roamed freely through the streets. Officer Stanley Reaves was shot and killed about 200 yards from my front door and the NPD response time to calls (if they came at all) was nothing short of pitiful, but the assessed value went up every year as did my taxes. I got tired of paying $2500 a month (mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities and upkeep) to live in a palace in a ghetto--what was the point of it? The city said they were cleaning up the 'hood but they lied, it kept getting worse. Gunshots every night, pregnant dogs, cats and teenagers everywhere and garbage all over the streets. After 2 years I sold it for close to 200K--definitely a ghetto palace.

I remember when the city of chesapeake basically ordered the guy who owned a parcel of land in western branch to sell it to develop the walmart they wanted there. I guess the forest that was there was blighted too?

I am not sure what about this article aggravates me the most.

1. That someone believes that it is to the benefit of all to have the power to simply declare an AREA as blighted to further what THEY believe to be beneficial to all, or

2. That they have to negotiate with owners to come to a reasonable decision that both parties feel comfortable with, instead of just taking what they want.

I can understand the desire benefit all, but to do so at the detriment of someone, is " rep·re·hen·si·ble ".

To those of you who believe that there is some government conspiracy to condemn and sell to developers: wake up!

I left a solid job in the private sector to do two years with the City of Norfolk. With few exceptions, the people there are hard working and honest. Rather than write absurd blogs about the city trying to sell property to developer "buddies", how about showing a little respect? You can disagree with the policy of condemning an entire block at a time without implying some malicious intent on behalf of the city.

Elsie-eye, you sound like you agree with wanting the drug houses and the rat invested houses gone and that's a good thing. We all agree there. What we don't agree on is that one or two boarded up, rat invested or drug houses on a block does not mean the city should have the right to take homes from the rest of the hard working people on that block. You do understand that if Warren has her way, the city would be able to condemn an entire block and give the property to one of her developer buddies, due to one boarded up house on the block? Yes indeed, we agree the right move was done on Mid-City Shopping Center. That was a blighted commercial property and was indeed being used by outsiders as a tax write off. The owners could have cared less about the environment of the property. Warren and the developers wanting to make a buck off the working peoples back, could care less about the area. All they see is the dollars they can make by getting the property for a cheap price.

There is no doubt that the local R&HA needs to be aggressive in combating blight and slack absentee property owners/landlords. But to force somebody into selling their home for a private redevelopment use is wrong. The city inspection department should be more aggressive. Pay the police a decent salary and fund them the resources to fight crime. Let nature run it's course and eventually the owners of the blighted properties will either have to raze the structure or sell at a reduced price.

So property owners who keep up their homes can't have it seized through eminent domain? We're supposed to feel sorry for government land planners having their plans slowed? Puh-leeze: if you take care of your house, the government shouldn't be able to seize it as blighted. That's precisely what the new law does. Thank you, General Assembly.

...and then perhaps you will actually understand the point of this article. When we talk about blighted properties, we aren't talking about a coat of paint. We are talking about boarded up, rat infested, dilapadated properties where crack heads hang out. For the sake of the honest, hard-working residents in the area (both renters and home owners), they need to go. They weren't being acquired for commercial development or upscale residential development...just modest homes built in the style of the neighborhood. As for the area where the Wal-Mart was built...it was abandoned, empty store fronts. It was a tax write off for a company in New York. The Wal-Mart has provided jobs and retail to an area where many people don't have transportation or job skills. It is a major part of a revitalization to the area.

The real issue is that the poor don't pay near as much in taxes that walmart or a condo development does. That's what this is all about, not so called blight, not redeveloping to make the coty nicer, it's all about who can they get more tax dollars from?

It's easy for someone with the secure high paying jobs of Warren to overlook the fact that sometimes bread on the table comes before a coat of paint or a bag of grass seed. Fortunately someone in government has acklowledged that and put in place legislation to stop working stiffs from losing their homes to the likes of Warren and her band of buddies. The "buddies" being the "development" companies, whose only concern is where their next buck is going to come from. Warren uses the old Mid-City Shopping Center (MCSC) and the new Wal-Mart as an example. MCSC was considered one property, was it not? No one lived in MCSC, it was commercial property. Having a blighted commercial property and having one or two blighted houses amoung then homes, are two different situations. Warren and the city is just out to steal homes from working people so they can feed their developer friends and maybe get a little sweet deal for themselves. If a house has heat, working plumbing, stays dry and provides a secure place to sleep, it is a home. Maybe cut Warrens sallary by half and pay the PD better to solve blight?

To many, the fact that it is difficult for cities to seize property from law abiding citizens is a good thing, yet the article devotes only two paragraphs to hearing this viewpoint.

Instead we hear from city officials lamenting that they have to prove a specific property is blighted before they can take it away.

With no irony whatsoever this reporter uses seized property being turned over to a Wal-Mart as a good example. Glad to hear the Pilot is looking out for the little guy.

Perhaps the reporter could have used the term "eminent domain" at least once? Maybe speak a word or two about Virginia's recent eminent domain reform? Explain the historical background of it? Touch on the disastrous Kelo decision that made news last year?