Recently we’ve had some folks come forward who would like the City to do “something” about the house over on Prescott avenue that is crumbling. Previously, the City has cited the owner for various and sundry violations and we eventually ended up in court. The judge back then said that if the City wanted to spend $70k (If I recall correctly) to shore up the house we (the city) could but that he (the judge) was not going to order the owner to fix the house up as they couldn’t afford it. Some had mentioned buying the house but the owners did not want to sell.
The Council took the matter up and approved the funds to stabilize the house and then two weeks later a Councilmember asked that the vote be reconsidered. This time the the previous vote was overturned. I voted to approve the funds as I believe that there are only so many of those houses in Old Town and the number is dwindling. For our City, they are a treasure and a part of our heritage. These houses constitute a critical part of the look and feel of Old Town. The majority of the Council felt otherwise. There was concern that the City wouldn’t get our money back due to the way that the lien would have to be filed. I obviously felt the risk was small otherwise I wouldn’t have voted the way I did.
So, fast forward several years to now. The house is crumbling and I haven’t seen anyone in it in about a year. There has been a change in the state law that establishes that funds spent by localities in this manner are to be handled in the same manner as tax liens: the City would be first in line when the house changes hands to get our money back. Unfortunately, the house has continued to deteriorate and I won’t even speculate what it would take to stabilize it. I’m not a lawyer or expert but I suspect the other option would be for the City to buy the house using ED. However, we aren’t really in the house-owning business so I’m not sure about that way….
Long and Short of this is that if you feel strongly about it, write the Council and Mayor or come speak at Citizen’s time. Posts here aren’t going to make anything happen. If you want action, you’re going to have to get out and do something. Otherwise, the house seems destined to continue it’s trip towards oblivion: at some point it will have to be torn down unless the owner or the City does something.
UPDATE: Steve sends linkage to the original story in the JM
January 16, 2011 at 12:23 pm
I will do what I can. Being a native “Manassanite”, I am interested in saving our historic homes.
January 16, 2011 at 1:30 pm
AND if they never sell and it continues to be passed down the family, the City will never see the money. If the City can take over the house and own it, that’s a different story. Heck, there were other houses on other streets that the City allowed to be torn down. I say stay out of it unless you own it.
January 16, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Well, as I recall from last Monday night’s Council Session, two ladies came forward regarding Quarry Road and Prescott and both complained about that house.
At some point, the VA law regarding derelict properties, now incorporated into our City Ordinance, is going to end up being applied. A rock and a hard place for that family….I understand their not wanting to let go, but at some point, they are going to have to.
I can imagine remediation for it is well beyond the $70K like you say, Andy. This house is sort of like the old rehab center on Fairview next to MCPD. It has sat empty of use for years. Years ago, I did a survey of it for a client who was considering purchasing the property. We did a walk through with the real estate agent, and at the time, I recall the sale price was around $3.5million, and by the time you took out the lead paint, abestos, repivot bricks, etc…it was about another million. Nice historic property, but it too at some point will cross into the world of derelict.
Of course, on a different note, if that property was torn down, and excellent place for expansion of MCPD for firing range, facilities, maybe incorporate the FRS headquarters so it is a center of Public Safety for the City.
Ah dreams….so nice to look at, so costly to afford!
January 16, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Net:
wrt just this house, I doubt it will last long enough to be passed down to anyone. The more likely outcome is that the building official declares it unsafe and it is demolished.
The wider issue is sticky….
January 16, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Go to the Manassas News&Messenger website’s
“search” area and type in 9300 Prescott. Two
2007 news articles from Sept. 19th and 26th
will pop-up. They help explain the dynamics
around this issue. The WaPo also has a piece
in their records from the same period.
January 16, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“The more likely outcome is that the building official declares it unsafe and it is demolished.”
I think it’s pretty safe to assume it’s ALREADY at the “unsafe” point, so what’s holding up the “building official” from doing something now?
An even more dangerous potential is by some way the place catches fire. I’m sure it’s a tinderbox and balloon construction where fire could spread rapidly. Then not only is the structure potentially lost forever, but our public safety folks are at risk containing a potentially dangerous situation. Is the structure secured against transient occupation?
VERY MUCH AGREE on how sticky such a situation can be.
January 17, 2011 at 10:19 am
I too am a native like several other here. I feel it’s important to preserve such historic homes. However, not at the expense of the taxpayers.
The owners have a responsibility to maintain their property. If there’s a mortgage on the property, it more than likely is subject to terms to maintain the property and/or that it’s their primary residence. These are tough economic times for all and the owners of this property should not get an “easy out” at the expense of the good people of the City of Manassas. The local jurisdiction have ordinances and the bank that holds the note(if there’s a mortgage) more than likely has a few restrictions too.
Agreed, this is a sticky situation.
Andy,
Please, give me a call. We need to talk about this one.
January 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm
It’s an important real issue. There’s nothing theoretical about it. Every city citizen driving by sees it. Every visitor sees it too. It’s a shame the vote turned around last time. At this point the old vote is water under the bridge. The question is what can we do now.
The City’s comprehensive plan quite properly envisions “gateways” into the City, and I believe suggests similar recognition as one enters Old Town. The location of that house effectively makes it a gateway structure. It effects the values of the very pretty and charming houses adjacent to it and it very clearly sends a signal about Old Town.
If the house was significantly improved, coming down Prescott from the North from would be a most wonderful way to enter Old Town. Unfortunately, visitors and potential buyers are currently simply prone to look at that house and ask, “what’s up with that?” It also makes the City seem powerless, which is never a healthy perception.
January 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm
http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=23797
January 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Adding the link to VA Dept of Historic Resources from when the City filed for the Historic District back in May ’88:
http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Cities/Manassas/155-0161_Manassas_HD_1988_Final_Nomination.pdf
January 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm
As a practical matter, the only scenario under which the taxpayers aren’t on the hook is if the owners repair the house. If it is condemned, we’ll have to pay to remove the house.
January 17, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Andy, that’s a darned god point.
January 17, 2011 at 7:15 pm
“Good” point. (God’s busy with more important stuff.)
January 17, 2011 at 9:03 pm
I wonder if the City could find a private partner to take over the cost of the house? It’s possible I suppose the house could undergo a renovation and open as a period museum of some sort.
January 17, 2011 at 9:12 pm
As much as I disagreed with the decision of the Supreme Court at the time, as I understood it, Kelo v. New London allows for a property to be seized and sold to another party under Eminent Domain for no other reason than increasing the taxes collected.
In this case, the property is clearly a “blight” to its neighborhood and old town Manassas. As Orwellian as it sounds the City could consider exercising its rights under exisiting Eminent Domain law to seize the property and sell it to a developer to remodel and re-sell. Not a comfortable process for anyone involved but a necessary one if you want to see development.
While were at it why not consider the same thing for GTS?
It’s a shame. The porch is beautiful. Not too many curved porches around anymore.
January 18, 2011 at 10:02 am
Sad thing is, Mrs. T dreamed of buying that house when we were first married. Me, having grown up in a house built in 1895, wanted nothing to do with it. Just scraping and removing all the lead paint in that old house cost me a teen summer, not to mention the constant replacement of rotting wood, plastering (I still remember how to do it) etc. I like old houses, but I like them better if they have been kept up over the years.
Still, the place has charm. Would make a nice something or other, if someone with a big bag of money wants to take it on. Someone other than the City. The City may have to sieze and demolish, I think, if the owners don’tdo something soon.
January 18, 2011 at 11:15 am
The amazing thing to me is the Judge refusing to enforce a Code provided to the City by the State just for these type of issues. Why didn’t the City appeal this decision. The property maintenance code has provisions in it that allow for fines everyday the violations exits. He should have issued those fines.
January 18, 2011 at 12:59 pm
@MCR: I’m not a lawyer so I’m not an expert!! However, my understanding of the few cases I’ve seen in the past couple of years is that judges are loathe to enforce local police powers where real property is concerned. They just don’t do it.
January 18, 2011 at 9:54 pm
To paraphrase my own phrase “Manassas- a Historic Place for Your 21st Century Business”. I’ve been hooked on this issue over the house and been running it through my head for the last two days.
Finding the filing for creation of the Historic District and reading through it was fascinating reading – never realized KC’s Resturant was a contributing structure…or the building was as old as it is. And then wandering to the City website and skimming through the ARB Handbook was also fascinating. Especially the part about destruction.
I looked through the approved Comp Plan of 2002, and am glad to see in the draft update, there is focus on Historic District and its importance. Tha importance being something I think that has become lost as houses change hands and City Hall has been wrapped up in reactive mode fighting the good fight on too many fronts at the same time.
Having an office of “Housing & Neighborhood Services” could bring restored emphasis to the HOD. Possibily through committee work, and even a meeting (aka Cindy’s Neighborhood Circle efforts) of the HOD residents to remind all of the importance. An ongoing effort within this office, to work in conjunction with ARB and Historic Resources Board (maybe?), to plan for a future, head off issues before they drag on too long, find alternate funding resources, etc etc etc…oh the possibilities are almost endless!
On an afternote: all those homes with names…to find a place with a router and kids to teach skill and make names for all of them for owners to hang/mount out front! What a concept for the H&NS office to work on!
January 19, 2011 at 8:24 am
Being part of a community means that we do for our neighbors what we’d like for them to do for us. I think modern times have diminished the core values of a community.
If the community is so concerned about the state of the structure, why doesn’t each person in the community step forward and offer help to the home owners? In old days, if you lost your house to fire, the whole community would pitch in and help you rebuild.
This concept has given way to people crying for the government to step in and do something about it instead. Therefore, the government goes to court and seizes the property under the auspices of eminent domain leaving a family homeless. It then turns and expects repayment from the rest of the community in taxes.
Wouldn’t it be far more effective to volunteer your time and expertise to help the home owner make repairs to the property? Doing so preserves the spirit of community and strengthens the ties that bond each of us together. Finally, it allows a family experiencing tough economic times to stay in their home.
Everyone wins…the community no longer has to endure the sight of a dilapidated structure, the home owner’s home is now repaired, and the relationships in the community are made stronger.
Just some thoughts…
January 19, 2011 at 10:36 am
I like the spirit and logic underlying your premise but I don’t see it as a more effective approach in this instance.
Sometimes, but certainly not always, it can be most effective for the community to work through the local government. Here, if the current problem is not addressed very soon, the blight will continue and we’re going to lose a rather terrific structure. Absent an individual or small group of individuals really stepping up, the city is in the best posture to address this. Again, I like your logic, but a page of history is worth a volume of logic.
January 19, 2011 at 10:43 am
Rick, I happen to know that years ago there was an offer by a local construction company to assist at a very very low cost with help in finanacing. The owner made it quite clear they did not want any assistance or anyone on their property. Andy, maybe it is time to have a CIty rep. go make an appointment with the Judges and discusss with them the importance of these local police powers and stress to them how much we depend on them to enforce the laws.
January 19, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“A worrisome old problem came up again
at a recent meeting of the Manassas Council:
What can be done about abandoned,
dilapidated and generally disreputable properties
which can be seen throughout the community?”
From “These Eyesores Are Dangerous”, an
editorial in the Manassas Journal-Messenger
(4-25-1968)
(There suggestion was to bulldoze them and send
the bill to the owner. Our hope in 2011, though,
is to have properties like 9300 Prescott restored
and preserved. How to do it is the big question.)
January 19, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Councilman Randolph, I am definately not a proponent of large governement, but this is an issue that should be handled by our local leaders. The State provided the Property Maintenance Code just for this reason. We need to educate our judges and let them know how important their support is in enforcement. These people have been given several opportunities to make the repairs and have thumbed their nose to the City. Again, I suggest a meeting with our judges to ensure we get cooperation from them when a case comes before them, otherwise there is no reason to have four inspectors on teh street enforcing this code. Just my 2cents.
January 19, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Let me assure you based on several decades of law practice that you don’t meet with judges to discuss with them beforehand how they should rule when a case comes before them.
At the appropropriate time you file these little pieces of paper called “pleadings,” telling the judge what you want. Then the other side gets to file their pleadings, saying how you are incorrect and a moron and how the word will fall apart if the judge gives you what you asked for. Then you have a hearing. Then, based solely on the public record in the case, the judge issues that thing called a “ruling.” In America that’s what happens.
Ok, so I am being way too tongue and cheek above. It was a hard day. MCR is being honest, and he is right that we are not looking for large government, and especially not here.
It seems to me that we all want the same thing: We especially don’t want to be looking back a few years from now and ask, “what were they thinking; why didn’t they do something?” MCR is (again) correct: We don’t want large government but we do want our leaders to act before it is too late. Sometimes the government can be our friend, our good tool, our means to an end. Like zoning. Like providing a police force. You know what I mean.
How to start? Once we are beyond potential political issues it is solely a legal issue. We ask the city attorney about our options, about the risks, about the costs. Then we move forward.
And our City Council shows leadership. And we are better off for it. I know that our Council can address this if they choose to.
January 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Their desire in 1968 was apparently to simply
eliminate offending structures. Restoring
historic buildings is far more complex.
January 19, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Yes, Steve, that’s true. It’s when the going gets tough that we need you most. I believe in my heart that we have an even-handed conservative Council that wants to do the best it can for us. You (the Council) don’t get paid squat. And everyone yells at you. And now this issue is before you.
January 19, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Umm, I am not a lawyer and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Innrxpress last night either ;-), but have been involved with local governement code enforcement and know for a fact you can meet with local judges and explain issues such as this. I am not suggestting you meet with them prior to a particular case, even I know that is impossible and just a little out of line, but to discuss issues such as local code enforcement I don’t believe is out of the question or even an issue legally. Maybe I am wrong but it has been done in a local jurisdiction in Northern Virginia and helped with local code enforcement to the point where one judge is assigned to all code cases to include zoning, fire, property maintenance and building codes. This ensures the judge has an idea of what is going on. I don’t pretend to know if this will help, but it has to be better than what we are doing now. There is no way this house should be allowed to sit like this and for a judge to acknowledge there is a problem, which he did when he authorized the City to take action, but not assess any fines or requirements for the owners to make the necessary repairs.
January 19, 2011 at 8:24 pm
I’m not taking sides but I have discussed this off-line with at least one local retired judge and a couple of out-of-town guys that I know and I didn’t get a real warm reception.
Like most things I expect that if you laid the proper groundwork you could get in the room but you had better have your act together. I’m not a lawyer either but my impression is that judges don’t like people telling them what the hell to do….:)
January 19, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Nowhere did I ever say to go and tell them what to do. But try to explain to them why these codes are so important to the community. No one ever said it would be easy, I don’t think you got into this game councilman thinking it would be easy. I know it can work if applied correctly, I have seen it done. Even if you don’t get a warm reception, what is the harm? they all ready refuse to apply appropriate fines for violations. This was just a thought, maybe it wasn’t the best, but I really haven’t seen any others posted and the City surely hasn’t had one yet. It will get to the point where the code enforcement people will get nothing done once the citizens learn nothing will happen for failing to comply.
January 19, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I think we’re saying about the same things….
January 19, 2011 at 10:12 pm
I’m seeing one common thread in discussion – intentionality.
Are we going to be intentional in either doing what government reluctantly will have to do, or being intentional in assisting the owners with at least shoring it up until some way can be found to initate restoration (possibly through the City obtaining a grant)?
I have come to the conclusion though the hard reality will have to be faced. I mentioned to Andy the other night at the Gang Summit about termites. Had a problem myself with the little fellas 8 years ago to the tune of $3500. I can imagine a house with no inspections, no treatments for years makes for support beams in the basement that if you touch, may give you sawdust.
The costs may at this point be fast exceeding the short-term vision of saving. But we better start looking toward the near and long-term.
January 22, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Take up a collection. Alot of people have fallen on hard times and it’s not up to our local government to fix up our properties
Don’t get me wrong, I think the house should be saved but not at tax payers expense. Set ip a fund and ask people for donations to save a part of history.
Which reminds me…. What happened to the house on Prescott & Center st. It was supposed to be moved but it looks like it was bulldozed instead.
January 24, 2011 at 9:24 am
Sure, so lets pour effort and money (literally millions) into old town’s streets and other projects such as the parking garage and the skating rink and etc., but then let’s get technical and refuse to spend a few hundred thousand on a house. There is nothing magic about the word “house.” The city owns plenty of property. From a standpoint of what attracts people to our city, the old houses are a very key part of it. Each time we lose one we lose part of old town. And I don’t just mean a part of our history. I mean that which allows us to promote and sell our city for the benefit of all.
I’m not suggesting the answer is simple but I would like to think that our officials could link their imaginations with their desire to do something here. I have no interest in having the house fixed up and “giving” it back to the current owners at a loss to the taxpayers. I would like to think that there are appropriate ways that steps could be taken without the city losing money in the long term. But I am not an expert, I’m just a local citizen. I’m looking to our city leaders for a solution
On the other hand, several hundred people are not showing up at council kicking and screaming about this as they did about KKs, so I’m not surprised the city is not in a reactive mode and is accordingly less motivated. No doubt there has been some chat among our city leaders. But I want to believe that, if the house comes down, it comes down only after our leaders have left no stone unturned in a concerted effort to arrive at a better solution.
As we lose these corner houses in key locations like this one, people will look back and ask “what were they thinking? How did they lets this happen.” Too bad the city blew it by one vote the last time this came up for a vote. I can feel us now drifting without leadership (I’m referring solely to the instant issue) to the point where there will simply be an empty lot where that house currently stands. It will be a sad day when that happens.
August 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm
As a fairly new resident of 2 years, I have many times passed the house on Prescott and wondered “what’s up with that?” along with a few other properties in town. I’m also surprised at how poorly (from a newcomer’s perspective, that is) the town has marketed is historic significance. Sure, we just had the Civil War Sesquiscentennial, but it doesn’t seem that Manassas has nearly the amount of tourism or marketing of similar historic towns. Is that intentional? Did the city want to avoid the tacky “ghost” tours, “haunted” Bed & Breakfasts, and mansion tours, event and wedding sites, etc. one might find in Gettysburg, Alexandria or even Warrenton that bring tourists and revenue to the city? I’m just curious. I googled and found this blog today, after driving past and sighing, as I usually do when I pass it. I’d also just passed Annaburg Manor ( yes, I just googled that one, too — another shame — I’m sure she was something to behold in her day) . It’s all very curious to me. I grew up in Baltimore. Baltimore city has done a fantastic job of rehabilitating and reusing so many wonderful historic properties. Some the city did, others were done by private companies or investors. Most have been upgraded to modern standards, while preserving the architectural historic integrity of the structure. My husband and I married at Cylburn Mansion & Arboretum in Baltimore City, a home built by Jesse Tyson that has served as everything from a private home, to an orphanage, and now a park belonging to the city of Baltimore. http://www.cylburnassociation.org . I realize I have gotten a bit off topic, here, but, I said before, I’m curious. Also, the old boarded up Bennett school next to the court house, could that not be put to better use than to house rats ?? I suppose the problem is funding, and that it may be too little, too late for so many, formerly beautiful historic properties in Manassas. What a shame, that the people of Manassas were so short-sighted about the historic significance and cultural value of such properties years ago. It really saddens me. Sorry to have hi-jacked your blog, Andy. I’ll step off my soapbox now.