Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Same Problem Properties, Different Fluorescent Placards

Post and photos by the Hawthorne Hawkman.

Slowly but surely the city of Minneapolis is moving forward with its demolition of the infamous property at 2222 4th St N.  Given Mahmood Khan's persistent legal battles, I wouldn't recommend holding one's breath until demolition actually happens.  But a pink placard has now been posted, informing passersby that the house has a date with the backhoe of doom

Not too far away, we have two properties in a row owned by Mohammed Amro - he of the "Mr. Slummy" moniker AND the slumlord inadvertently responsible for the "Hawthorne Hawkman" nickname.  The property in question though, is not 2515 3rd St N, where a hole to china was attempted, and the owner clearly intended to make a mockery of city zoning by bringing in at least four units to an area where only duplexes are allowed.  The second floor open to the elements, and the grass growing tall enough to warrant a 311 call are pretty strong indicators that Mr. Slummy has given up that dream.  Amro, however, owns the adjacent house at 2519 3rd St N.  From the exterior, it has looked like he's done somewhat respectable work there.  If we didn't have the immediate juxtaposition of 2515 3rd, one could almost assume Mr. Slummy was not, well, slummy.

But then there was the fire.  For almost a year, the house has sat vacant, with little or no repairs done.  A week ago, a shiny new placard was added to the regulatory rainbow.  One would think that somehow the house's fire-damaged status caused the citation.  Instead, the house is unfit for habitation because of unsafe levels of lead.  This is a first.  Other slumlords like to hide behind lead abatement (even as they strip historic elements of a property).  Mr. Slummy aparently took the ball in the complete opposite direction.

How long before one or both of these properties sports a similar pink card, calling for demolition?

2 comments:

  1. From what I understand, the stimulus money that funded a lot of the demolitions is running out. When that happens, I suspect the city will just let these properties go tax forfeit, leaving the county with the cost of demolition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What is wrong with the first house you pictured - it looks ok to me!

    ReplyDelete