Friday, June 15, 2012

Another Khan Property Hits the Demo List

Post and photo by the Hawthorne Hawkman, sign made by Jordan neighbor Deb Wagner.

At today's City Council meeting, another Khan property was unanimously voted into a landfill.  2639 Oliver Avenue North got the heave-ho, thanks in large part to dedicated Jordan residents who compiled video and photographic evidence of just how damaging a force Mahmood Khan is to north Minneapolis.  Even though the agenda item was not up for public discussion, three of us sat through the meeting holding homemade signs reminding the Council how much this property needs to come down and how much we need strong action against slumlords like Khan.

In a poetic twist, many of the signs were papered-over "We Buy Houses" sign spam.  Just like Khan is known for placing used carpeting in his rentals, we reused items that should have been thrown away a long time ago.

I hope our northside CMs realized that as staunch of an advocate for preservation as I am, if a house inspired me to take time off of work to go downtown and lobby for demolition, then this place must really need it.  That being said, Khan has been fighting the demolition at 2222 4th St N for several years now, so who can say when the Oliver property will meet the backhoe of doom?

11 comments:

  1. Wait wait! I want the studs! Hold up, there is good old world lumber in there. That is a HUGE house and a major waste of resources. It's all being disposed of based on someones ego trip on what the standards of personal property should be? Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Sad" is that Khan neglected this property so badly that demolition becomes the only viable alternative, it's not like Khan is going to sell it to the Home Renovation Channel for a dollar and throw in a peace offering of a box of tulips.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Destroying this house is like "Throwing the Baby out with the bathwater". Khan won't lose any sleep over this and it won't modify his behavior with the hundreds of other rentals he owns. How many other homes will have to come down as homesteaders flee our neighborhoods in the wake of absurd lack of responsibility to enforce livability standards.

    It is disgusting that the City of Minneapolis and the City Council feels that they have done a service to the community in this action which has no lasting merit other than create another hole in our community.

    Why doesn't the council representative for our community who chairs the Public Safety & Health Committee, is on the Regulatory, Energy & Environment Committee, and on the Problem Properties committee see this and take a harder stand on this issue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I disagree. One of the most annoying things you can say to a preservationist is "But some houses NEED to be demolished." That's because pretty much every house can be saved; it's just a question of how much in resources one is willing and able to commit towards saving a house.

    In this case, the structure was severely damaged by the tornado and its shredded tarp has left it open to the elements for months on end. Whatever damage was there has been exacerbated by neglect, and probably further worsened by whatever Khan was doing to the place prior to the storm.

    That being said, I try not to advocate for demolition based on current ownership. If this (presumably) 100-year-old house could be saved, it would last for another 100 years or more. In that context, the time it spent under slumlord ownership is a pretty small period. I've had people advocate for tearing this house down because of who owns it, and that did not persuade me. Walking over to it and seeing it up close in person did the trick though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Actually what you are saying is that restoring the home is "cost prohibitive" from a profit standpoint due to Khans neglect.

    But cost should have nothing to do with it. Khan has deep pockets. Perhaps if he were forced to dig a little deeper into those pockets, he would have a bit more respect for the structures and communities he gets involved with.

    Example- http://www.builtstlouis.net/mullanphy.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Or...at least buy insurance on his investments!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is Khan paying for the demo? He should! And frankly, if the City is forced to bulldoze a property owned for "investment" purposes, all other pending rental licenses should be revoked, end of story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not true Khan won't modify his behavior because of this. He will no longer have a structure on this property. It won't become a crappy rental and he will have to pay for the demolition one way or another. It will certainly "modify" his behavior to some extent.

    We just need to "modify" his behavior all the way out of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good luck with that! The only way to get rid of him is to follow the money and make his presence costly by forcing him to do business like a normal person.

    Every time he creates a shithole or vacant lot it lowers all the other property values and makes business more affordable for him. The short term tenants who are receiving free rent don't care about creating a decent community. Since, we pay the absurd rental cost through our tax dollars (section 8) he laughs all the way to the bank when they tear one down. Because when the city has enough vacant lots they will bundle up more tax dollars to buy this piece of land under some community development scheme(Just like Rietman does).

    Why should he leave?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The city most likely will demolish the property and assess Khan (assuming he doesn't fight this in court, and let's hope that doesn't happen). But even then, Khan could just let it go in tax forfeiture. I believe that failure to pay taxes (i.e. Bashir Moghul and Steven Meldahl) should be grounds for losing ALL rental licenses. While technically it is, it's far too easy for slumlords to weasel out of that particular box.

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.leg.state.mn.us%2Fhrd%2Fpubs%2Fspecasmt.pdf&ei=_gHoT6q7JbPs2AX3x9zZCQ&usg=AFQjCNGOjbTlVqY7nn2q2t_gRMqLfDHxmQ&sig2=6HCyQpi3c9tm9ykYSGJPPg

    Special assessments are tax deductible expenses of doing business. (In this case just being a slumlord!)

    Looks like homesteaders have the deck stacked against them because our taxes will go up to pay for this shit while guys like Khan write it off from dollars that would otherwise have gone to pay for our community services. You know - the Police, Fire, and Emergency Services that the deadbeat tenants in his rentals are so fond of utilizing which drives the costs through the ceiling.

    ReplyDelete