Bits and Pieces

Friday's Tribune carries the story about the imminent razing of houses deemed "unsafe". One of the five houses discussed in the article is 1746 Ekin Avenue. This house was re-roofed a year ago at city expense.

The specific house on Ekin Avenue was cited by Greg Sekula as "definitely salvageable".
Building Commission president Steve LaDuke pointed out that this house and the four other houses have existing demolition orders. Sekula would like the demolition order rescinded, and speculative rehabilitation by city-hired contractors undertaken to bring the structure to a level of "safety". Then a buyer would be sought. The city would recover its investment through enforcement of a lien against the property, or at the close of a sale.

This situation has the fortunate markings of a success in the making, with one caveat. The "opposing" parties are represented by reasonable people on both sides of the issue. In fact, Steve LaDuke proposed a sensible solution to the problem when he said, as the article states, "the city could take possession of a house, receive an estimate for repairs, market the house for a certain period at that price and perform the repairs only if someone bites." Absent any interest, the demolition order would be carried out.

The caveat: where is evidence that the city has reached the catalytic moment where a buyer can have confidence in the surrounding neighborhood's ability to justify his/her faith in the rescued house? Is it more likely that, lacking a concerted effort toward revitalization, the buyer of a rescued house would be a speculator, who would take a flyer because he's going to rent the house rather than live in it?

This points up rather clearly the need for a rental inspection program undertaken with a consistent application of building standards throughout the city. Simply make sure that landlords act responsibly by offering two minimal amenities: safe housing, and units that meet accepted standards of good exterior housekeeping. If those restrictions were placed equitably and forcefully on all landlords, I believe owner-occupiers would feel confident that they are investing in what is termed in accounting, a "going concern".

Paving is on the agenda for the City Council Monday night. Apparently we don't have enough money to do all that is needed.

In the March 28, 2007 Courier-Journal, Metro Councilman Tom Owen wrote a glowing remembrance of Charles Farnsley, the progressive mayor of Louisville in the late Forties to early Fifties. What does that have to do with the price of asphalt in New Albany?
Mayor Farnsley implemented a systen of "half-soleing" some of Louisville's streets. The new pavement was applied only to the driving lanes; the parking lanes were not paved. The asphalt budget was stretched and Farnsley was called a great, progressive, leader. Perhaps New Albany could retrieve an idea from the middle of the last century and claim the mantle of "Progressive".

Briefly, another thought on paving. Recently the idea of making one-way streets two-way was offered as a method of traffic-calming. There are a number of streets in town that were brick not too long ago. In fact, the roughly one-inch of asphalt applied 20-30 years ago has predictably worn thin and has disappeared in places. Some of these blocks could be returned to brick, having the result of a quaint appearance, and necessary traffic-calming as people tend to drive slower on such streets. It would save asphalt, too.