October 2, 2017 at 11:14 am #58091
I saw another rat yesterday (and a squirrel, to be fair) running from the general location of the run-down or abandoned homes at 42nd and Sunnyside and I remember bringing it up a few years ago. one of our neighbors suggested that the owner had a “plan” and was working to finish/renovate or fix these eyesores. there’s four or five of them too, to the best of my knowledge, with a single owner?
I know this sort of Nimby-ism is frowned upon, but they really are a drag on the aesthetics of the neighborhood. they’re not cute, they’re depressing and messy. I feel egnuine empathy for the adjacent neighbors who have to live next to them. Does anyone know if there’s any progress on that alleged plan?
They’re sitting empty, probably harming the property values of the adjacent houses, and in a city starved of available, let alone affordable housing, it seems somewhat bonkers that they can be left to simply rot.
One of them is glacially getting siding, like, one tile at a time, but has had exposed Tyvek and missing portions for the five years I’ve been driving by it.October 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm #58092
It’s Zero Family Housing.October 8, 2017 at 10:01 am #58107
If you want to start a tour of Scary Houses of Wallingford, just two blocks away are 4013 and 4017 Eastern – also apparently abandoned for years.October 8, 2017 at 11:30 am #58111
How about the block of dilapidated houses on Whitman N between 43rd & 44th/ Shameful.October 9, 2017 at 12:19 pm #58130
The houses on 42nd and Sunnyside you might call a part of old Wallingford. This neighborhood was mostly working-middle class until 20-25 years ago. I walk by these houses frequently as I walk my dog around the neighborhood. I’ve gotten to know the owner but have never asked him what his plans are for them. I don’t think it’s any of my business. I do see him working on 2 or 3 of them regularly, at his own speed. He keeps the shrubbery trimmed regularly and I doubt there are any more rats there than at my place a block away, and I’ve seen all of one in 40 years. There is no junk or garbage around either. So why can’t we allow the owner his privacy? I don’t know of any neighbors who object.
He never intended to move into a million dollar neighborhood, as neither did I. It’s rather irksome to be told by newcomers what we should be doing with our property. (I don’t mean you, Frankie.) Please let us live in peace, as long as we are not in violation of any laws. Our eccentricities should be welcomed, not condemned. Money isn’t the purpose of life for many of us. As long as we can pay our taxes.October 9, 2017 at 12:45 pm #58135
My concern is not actually the dilapidated appearance, but (baseless as of now) that eventually the city will say, “No, we’re going to take these from you through eminent domain, or some such vector” – and then somebody sticks five three storey condo units on the sites.
I have only ever seen three rats in Wallingford, and two of them from that corner and one on MY street. I’m sure there’s thousands of rats, so my anecdote is meaningless for lots of reasons.October 9, 2017 at 2:04 pm #58136
As far as I know the city cannot take buildings on private property through eminent domain unless the property is being requisitioned for public use. I really don’t see any of these houses being a danger because they are tightly boarded and locked. I suspect the owner perhaps just likes to work on houses. Two of them look like he has no plans for, but they are fenced off from the street.
I don’t consider them an eyesore even, because we’ve always had homes in disrepair in the neighborhood. Eventually they turn over when the owner dies or has to sell them. He seems to get along well with the neighbors. If I ever saw a rat, I’d let him know, but as I said before, he does keep the properties cleaned up, at least as far as I can tell. I think there would be a problem if there were squatters, but he lives there and I doubt that will happen until the situation changes somehow.
If anyone wants House Beautiful homes all around, they’d better move to the suburbs. Cities can’t provide that except in exclusive neighborhoods and Wallingford is not yet one of those, thank God.October 9, 2017 at 2:44 pm #58137
As for what could happen there, if the existing structures were torn down – the upzones scheduled for next year won’t hit that area, so it will still be SF5000. That doesn’t reliably preserve the esthetic character – structures could be oversize, and if done by for someone like one of the Blueprint Capital operators it will have the same grey box with some token wood esthetic as their townhouses.
Mike O’Brien’s ADU legislation is beginning its SEPA process, currently in the “scoping” phase. That’s nominally about mother-in-law apartments and backyard cottages, but the key provisions (that got it slapped down by the hearing examiner in a SEPA appeal last year) are clearly intended to extend the concept to 3-unit rental properties on SF lots. That may be what we can expect down the road, on redeveloped SF lots. Of course you could write to your councilmember about that … Rob Johnson, or Mike O’Brien if you’re in his district, I’m sure they care what we think.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.