Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am hoping that all of the new businesses on the West side see success, but as CG mentioned small businesses are hint and miss no matter the location. I wish this young lady the best of luck.
As for the development of the West Side and the Elk City business district, I see potential. Unfortunately I also see several factors that will burden economic development. Crime is terrible over there, and it is tainting the name of the whole community. When the East End was "cleaned-up" a lot of the drug business was consolidated to the West Side which in result has made the West Side twice as bad. I honestly don't have a clue how to resolve it, but I can tell you that until it is resolved (likely never) then it will be difficult to see long term success on the West Side. Also there is an abundance of unusable structures. Sure the city can tear down old stuff, but its hard convincing businesses and developers to take a chance of a community that has a bad side.
The potential I see is is taking it back block by block. Starting with the main corridors (Washington, Lee, Virginia, Blvd) and working inward towards the hoods. They have already completed a very important step which was building new schools and focusing in on education. The rest is a nightmare to undertake, but I would never say it couldn't be done.
Thank You Chris, that was the sort of reply I was looking for, thanks.
I have touched on the complicated, messy and costly issues that municipalities face in dealing with urban blight in previous posts and that task is daunting. But, even when both the city and the property owner wish to see the property reformed, the municipality usually has to wait several years. It costs about 8,000 dollars to level and remove a single family home and I do not have a recent figure on an industrial site.
A lot of the costs go into the inspection process to determine if hazardous materials are on site such as asbestos. Once uncovered, those materials must be removed in EPA approved methods before general demolition can take place. I am somewhat infamous for my love affair with the bulldozer on these forums, but in truth such a tactic does no real good. The process is so long and drawn out and costly that you see many property owners revert to setting their holdings on fire and hoping it looks like an accident.
While I have no first hand knowledge that the city looks the other way, I have heard of cases where the city did not dig too deep post conflagration to find the cause.
Like you, I am not precisely sure what to do with the West Side, it is in the shape it is in because the triangle was destroyed in the 1970's to make way for what was called Super Block back then and is now the Town Center Mall. Merely, repeating the process of what took place on the East End will simply move the scum from the West Side further west and into North Charleston - which is happening as we speak.
Zoning has to be the first priority and here the city can do much but grandfather rises from the grave to produce exceptions. The worst part is that most of the people that live are just fine with things the way they are.
I have my own idea, but some would call it draconian and I am not talking about the bulldozer. I don't have a lot of time today to go over it but perhaps this evening I will pop back in and lay it out. I am sure no one will be impressed and very likely elewis will think me a tyrant, if he does not already.
Thank You Chris, that was the sort of reply I was looking for, thanks.
I have touched on the complicated, messy and costly issues that municipalities face in dealing with urban blight in previous posts and that task is daunting. But, even when both the city and the property owner wish to see the property reformed, the municipality usually has to wait several years. It costs about 8,000 dollars to level and remove a single family home and I do not have a recent figure on an industrial site.
A lot of the costs go into the inspection process to determine if hazardous materials are on site such as asbestos. Once uncovered, those materials must be removed in EPA approved methods before general demolition can take place. I am somewhat infamous for my love affair with the bulldozer on these forums, but in truth such a tactic does no real good. The process is so long and drawn out and costly that you see many property owners revert to setting their holdings on fire and hoping it looks like an accident.
While I have no first hand knowledge that the city looks the other way, I have heard of cases where the city did not dig too deep post conflagration to find the cause.
Like you, I am not precisely sure what to do with the West Side, it is in the shape it is in because the triangle was destroyed in the 1970's to make way for what was called Super Block back then and is now the Town Center Mall. Merely, repeating the process of what took place on the East End will simply move the scum from the West Side further west and into North Charleston - which is happening as we speak.
Zoning has to be the first priority and here the city can do much but grandfather rises from the grave to produce exceptions. The worst part is that most of the people that live are just fine with things the way they are.
I have my own idea, but some would call it draconian and I am not talking about the bulldozer. I don't have a lot of time today to go over it but perhaps this evening I will pop back in and lay it out. I am sure no one will be impressed and very likely elewis will think me a tyrant, if he does not already.
Well, here goes nothing...
I have several ideas most of which are not interdependent on the other but could be if the right balance was struck.
I think everyone would agree what leads a neighborhood that was once pleasant into the darkness is the rampant rental property propagation. People who do not care about the home treat it badly in the lower price ranges with few exceptions and when they don't care about their home they care even less about the welfare of others.
The single biggest move the city could make would be to declare the West Side residential properties as single family. It would activate at the end of the next full calendar year. Any perpetual leases would expire at that date and any lease that would extend beyond that date if started in the existing period would artificially terminate on that date. This would dump a huge inventory of run down houses on the market in January of the following of the year and most owners of such properties live out of state or are sadly local slum lords.
I use the definition of a single family home as a designated street address. 201 Oak Street is a single family home but 203-A, 203-B and 203-C are not. Similarly, row houses that such as those on Delaware are single family homes because each gets a respective street address, but some houses have a 159 1/2 Maryland address because they have a garage apartment, that unit would be eliminated in these proposals. There are some legitimate multi-use built to be such in this footprint and they would be forced out of business.
This process could be undertaken in a series of footprint expansions that would start for example in the first phase:
The Next phase would be something smaller but in this case, the new zoning would end all residential uses in this phase:
Phase 2: Lee Street - Washington Street - Pennsylvania Avenue
Phase 3 would return to the same format as phase 1.
Phase 3: Pennsylvania Avenue - Spring Street - Crescent Road/Rail Line to Railroad Avenue
This would encompass the bulk of Elk City.
Many of the owners are going to be forced to sell their properties because of the low property values, which they directly caused by converting the neighborhood - as a group - to rental residential.
The city could then set up a program whereby it sets up a program for those that buy in this district. They could offer a limited pool of loans each year, limited or eliminated property taxes or even go so far as to establish a refurbishment program with some volunteers such as Americorp, to perform updating, energy efficiency and beautification of the newly purchased properties.
This program does not cover the entire west side and that is by design. The blight crept up from Patrick Street it is not going to be pushed back all at once. Plus if this sort of thing was well-received, entrepreneurs might dive in and do some of the lifting for the city.
Congruently with the residential project, I would set up a business program and this leads me to my second proposal:
Any business owner that has a business in Elk City and also lives there pays no B&O takes on their business and no homeowners property tax. This sounds like a bad deal for the city and it would be if every business owner lived there but that is simply not going to happen. I would not think more than a few would do so, but the PR from such a move is massive.
Small Business start ups are always pressed for money and this would showcase the cities belief in the small business operator.
The biggest deal for the city is that this is going to bring owners into a litigious mood to fight this, but this is not eminent domain at work, rezoning is a much less fought over issue and usually when it is contested it is because zoning regulations are relaxed and not tightened.
The other issue is going to be the vacant house bloom come each January, which is why I separated Phase 1 and Phase 3 by 24 months. The city might venture into deep water right off of the bat by including a clause that all properties that revert from rental to single family have a 12 month window to be brought into single family use pending approved inspection or the city attaches a lien to the property that grows each year and culminates in a seizure once the lien maximizes the property value.
This steps into Suggestion 3:
Issue to all residential property owners that their properties in this footprint must meet city guidelines that come into effect in January of the activation of Phase 1. Any residential property in this footprint that is not maintained to what would only be best described as the barest standard:
Not boarded up
No broken windows
Landscape maintained, grass cut, trees trimmed, etc.
No garbage in the yard
No non-operational vehicles in the driveway or on the street - in a garage is permissible
No trailers or boats outside of a garage with a closed door
Curtains on all windows
Fence in secure form
Home and other buildings on the property are reasonable in appearance, i.e., painted in the last ten years
This may sound like a step list of demands but any responsible property owner is doing this and more. Each year the city would inspect each property by visual inspection from the street for general appearances and append the rating to the tax file that is due the following year. The taxes could not be paid until the property is brought up to code and failure to pay taxes results in a lien being applied to the property.
Suggestion 4:
No new business could be established in any structure in the footprint that was previously a residence when this program was enacted.
I have other ideas, but I am looking for a review of these before I go deeper. What do you guys think?
I think everyone would agree what leads a neighborhood that was once pleasant into the darkness is the rampant rental property propagation. People who do not care about the home treat it badly in the lower price ranges with few exceptions and when they don't care about their home they care even less about the welfare of others.
Yup. By and large, people who have an actual investment (i.e. house or property) in a neighborhood is inherently invested in the well-being of the neighborhood, and it is usually a balance of care for one's neighbor as well as preventing the decrease in value of your own property. I can think of a few exceptions (like us, for instance), but on the whole people who aren't tied to the land and neighborhood past their lease have no motivation to improve their neighborhood. I'll come back to the exceptions, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caden Grace
The single biggest move the city could make would be to declare the West Side residential properties as single family. It would activate at the end of the next full calendar year. Any perpetual leases would expire at that date and any lease that would extend beyond that date if started in the existing period would artificially terminate on that date. This would dump a huge inventory of run down houses on the market in January of the following of the year and most owners of such properties live out of state or are sadly local slum lords.
I use the definition of a single family home as a designated street address. 201 Oak Street is a single family home but 203-A, 203-B and 203-C are not. Similarly, row houses that such as those on Delaware are single family homes because each gets a respective street address, but some houses have a 159 1/2 Maryland address because they have a garage apartment, that unit would be eliminated in these proposals. There are some legitimate multi-use built to be such in this footprint and they would be forced out of business.
This process could be undertaken in a series of footprint expansions that would start for example in the first phase:
The Next phase would be something smaller but in this case, the new zoning would end all residential uses in this phase:
Phase 2: Lee Street - Washington Street - Pennsylvania Avenue
Phase 3 would return to the same format as phase 1.
Phase 3: Pennsylvania Avenue - Spring Street - Crescent Road/Rail Line to Railroad Avenue
This would encompass the bulk of Elk City.
Many of the owners are going to be forced to sell their properties because of the low property values, which they directly caused by converting the neighborhood - as a group - to rental residential.
So would this preclude the conversion of upper floors of buildings to rental apartments, or even condos? Also, say for some reason I would want to build a new multi-unit apartment building next to Fountain Hobby. One, would that be permissible under the proposed zoning changes and two, would that be preferred under your vision? What if it was on Delaware, next to the old Charleston Trophy building? I actually do like the idea of converting most of the houses on the West Side and that area specifically back to single-family, owner-occupied housing, but I'm not too keen on doing it in such a way that prohibits increased density and mixed-use districts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caden Grace
The city could then set up a program whereby it sets up a program for those that buy in this district. They could offer a limited pool of loans each year, limited or eliminated property taxes or even go so far as to establish a refurbishment program with some volunteers such as Americorp, to perform updating, energy efficiency and beautification of the newly purchased properties.
This program does not cover the entire west side and that is by design. The blight crept up from Patrick Street it is not going to be pushed back all at once. Plus if this sort of thing was well-received, entrepreneurs might dive in and do some of the lifting for the city.
Congruently with the residential project, I would set up a business program and this leads me to my second proposal:
Any business owner that has a business in Elk City and also lives there pays no B&O takes on their business and no homeowners property tax. This sounds like a bad deal for the city and it would be if every business owner lived there but that is simply not going to happen. I would not think more than a few would do so, but the PR from such a move is massive.
Small Business start ups are always pressed for money and this would showcase the cities belief in the small business operator.
This. I love these ideas. This is also why I asked about mixed-use earlier; this hearkens back to a time when business owners lived in the spaces above or behind their shops. They had a double interest in seeing that area thrived as they both lived and worked there. This also keeps the wealth and reinvestment in the area, thereby perpetuating its growth and maintenance. Finally, the idea of increased density - not simply old houses converted to apartments, but quality construction of multi-unit buildings - plays into this as well. More eyes on the street help to deter crime and keep a steady flow of consumers within walking distance of the retail, services, and, hopefully, offices in the district. That's why a blanket, wholesale rezoning doesn't quite sit well with me unless provisions for mixed-use, multi-unit structures (both renovations and new construction) are included. But I do love the incentives, which should be there regardless of whatever rezoning would/should take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caden Grace
This steps into Suggestion 3:
Issue to all residential property owners that their properties in this footprint must meet city guidelines that come into effect in January of the activation of Phase 1. Any residential property in this footprint that is not maintained to what would only be best described as the barest standard...
This may sound like a step list of demands but any responsible property owner is doing this and more. Each year the city would inspect each property by visual inspection from the street for general appearances and append the rating to the tax file that is due the following year. The taxes could not be paid until the property is brought up to code and failure to pay taxes results in a lien being applied to the property.
Suggestion 4:
No new business could be established in any structure in the footprint that was previously a residence when this program was enacted.
I have other ideas, but I am looking for a review of these before I go deeper. What do you guys think?
I mostly agree with this, too, as people should have some standard of decency of their property as it relates to the neighborhood. It all doesn't have to look the same or be the nicest thing on earth, but it isn't hard to simply take care of what you have. I do have a couple of questions about the bolded. How would home-based businesses (whether simply based in a home with no street-level customer interaction or actual live/work spaces, such as some artist studios) be included in this? What would you consider something like a bed and breakfast, or even a para-hospitality structure, like a homeowner that uses AirBnB? These aren't really objections, just curious as to your vision.
Overall, this isn't that radical of an idea to me. Depending on your clarifications, though, I would have some objections as it relates to dwellings located in the "heart" of Elk City (as targeted in your Phase 2) and possible prohibitions of larger apartment buildings/condominiums. Having provisions/exceptions for at least some legitimate renters (and, no, I don't know what would quite constitute "legitimate," but I'm sort of thinking of my own situation here) should be encouraged to add to the mix of housing options, though it shouldn't be the predominant use by any means. Besides that, though, I like it. Though it's a rough version, it is a vision of a new (or, rather, old) housing paradigm. And we obviously agree on the inherent issue: people need to take ownership of the place they live, not just their house but actually buying into the neighborhood and community where that dwelling is located.
A supply store called Rural King will be opening a location in the old Sam's Club building in Cross Lanes. I'd never heard of it before, but it appears to be a farm/home/hardware store (along the lines of Tractor Supply) mostly based in the midwest (IL, IN, OH, and a few scattered in other states). There are locations in Parkersburg, Gallipolis, and near Ashland if anyone is familiar with those particular stores.
I have been to the one in Parkersburg. It has a lot of everything, even clothing. It's great that something is going into that empty space, but like both comments above I don't get particularly excited about it. Still it's growth and an added retail store that is a new face to the area.
Has anybody heard anything about the large store planning on building beside Kroger in Dunbar? I still haven't seen anything beyond the original article.
Last edited by Chriscross309; 05-31-2016 at 06:38 PM..
So would this preclude the conversion of upper floors of buildings to rental apartments, or even condos? Also, say for some reason I would want to build a new multi-unit apartment building next to Fountain Hobby. One, would that be permissible under the proposed zoning changes and two, would that be preferred under your vision? What if it was on Delaware, next to the old Charleston Trophy building? I actually do like the idea of converting most of the houses on the West Side and that area specifically back to single-family, owner-occupied housing, but I'm not too keen on doing it in such a way that prohibits increased density and mixed-use districts.
The initial intention of the plan is to run out the uncaring out of state owners and slum lords and give the people that actually live there and want to be there the freedom form their own community identity that is not based on indifference or greed.
What I was trying to impart is that row houses or townhouses would be erected on some streets. These would be smaller developments with maybe a rear access garage and a small green space in front; three floors high and all brick. There are a set of these on the Kanawha Boulevard. I was focused on each property being a single family, so any of the 4-plex buildings would obsolete in this rezoning and face shut down and demolition - there are only 3 such units in Phase 1 on Maryland.
This. I love these ideas. This is also why I asked about mixed-use earlier; this hearkens back to a time when business owners lived in the spaces above or behind their shops. They had a double interest in seeing that area thrived as they both lived and worked there. This also keeps the wealth and reinvestment in the area, thereby perpetuating its growth and maintenance. Finally, the idea of increased density - not simply old houses converted to apartments, but quality construction of multi-unit buildings - plays into this as well. More eyes on the street help to deter crime and keep a steady flow of consumers within walking distance of the retail, services, and, hopefully, offices in the district. That's why a blanket, wholesale rezoning doesn't quite sit well with me unless provisions for mixed-use, multi-unit structures (both renovations and new construction) are included. But I do love the incentives, which should be there regardless of whatever rezoning would/should take place.
After re-reading what I posted about Phase 2 it did not come out very well at all. I was proposing no single family residential in Phase 2, but allowing any type of upper floor residential so long as their was a business below. The residential and business entrances could not be shared.
I mostly agree with this, too, as people should have some standard of decency of their property as it relates to the neighborhood. It all doesn't have to look the same or be the nicest thing on earth, but it isn't hard to simply take care of what you have. I do have a couple of questions about the bolded. How would home-based businesses (whether simply based in a home with no street-level customer interaction or actual live/work spaces, such as some artist studios) be included in this? What would you consider something like a bed and breakfast, or even a para-hospitality structure, like a homeowner that uses AirBnB? These aren't really objections, just curious as to your vision.
Referring to the question on the home based business has two ideas in my head. Someone that has no clientele as in open to the public but might receive an irregular caller would be unaffected by any of this. Those that had a scheduled non-public business such as a babysitter, hair salon, yoga instructor - basically any home that had a regular stream of clients even if they weren't open to the public would not be allowed. Of course any home owner that had an open to the public sign would be disallowed as well.
A bed and Breakfast would have to be located in Phase 2. As much as I find them charming, as soon as the city makes one exception, everyone else tries to find one as well, so unfortunately, no exceptions.
An AirBnB falls under the above as well and would not be allowed.
Overall, this isn't that radical of an idea to me. Depending on your clarifications, though, I would have some objections as it relates to dwellings located in the "heart" of Elk City (as targeted in your Phase 2) and possible prohibitions of larger apartment buildings/condominiums. Having provisions/exceptions for at least some legitimate renters (and, no, I don't know what would quite constitute "legitimate," but I'm sort of thinking of my own situation here) should be encouraged to add to the mix of housing options, though it shouldn't be the predominant use by any means. Besides that, though, I like it. Though it's a rough version, it is a vision of a new (or, rather, old) housing paradigm. And we obviously agree on the inherent issue: people need to take ownership of the place they live, not just their house but actually buying into the neighborhood and community where that dwelling is located.
An apartment/condo/loft building could be built or converted in Phase two, provided it had at least one first floor business and this one business could be the operational offices of the residential site.
The intent is to bring back the single family home owned by the existing residents next too but no in the commercial corridor that the two phases are located on either side of. The commercial corridor is a strip that would have both auto-centric, walking and parking businesses. Once this would be completed, it would be up to the planners to set up the next ten years in some other area of the West Side because everyone that is moved out of Elk City is just going to migrate a few blocks in the beginning. Everyone further west has to be made aware, the future is the same for them.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-01-2016 at 05:13 AM..
Reason: Please don't use red text. It is generally reserved for moderator actions.
So here is more on the coming Rural King (expected to employ up to 80) in Cross Lanes, as well as an announcement for O'Reilly Auto Parts also opening a store in Cross Lanes across from Kroger. This would be the third O'Reilly store in Kanawha County with a recent store opened in Kanawha City and one in Sissonsville. Still no word on the Sheetz that is clearly under construction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
