Abandoned house demolished

[Kimster]

Well I don't claim to know and I'm sure the laws are different in Missouri than I am used to. But I can recall when I was working in City government a home that was unsafe. We had to send several letters certified mail, and then the Bldg. Commissioner had to get a court order to demolish the house before we could do it.

So I find this a real shock.

I have some city background under my belt as well and that's why I'm also extremely surprised. Unless the owner has known for a long time and is playing the media.

 

[mrye4709]

I read that you wouldn't even know the well was there without looking UNDER the deck. I sure would like to know who called in the tip. Can't find the article now, sorry.



And this guy just don't sound right....BBM
Paul Morrison is a former Johnson County, Kan. prosecutor. He is not directly involved in the case, but said Monday night investigators are probably doing everything they can to be thorough.

“They probably may or might not have a suspect or could be looking for all that tape, all that footage that TV stations took to see whether or not someone is giving a consistent story,” Morrison said



Read more: http://www.wcpo.com/dpps/shared/sea...-to-nearby-vacant-house_6813201#ixzz1aWLlsVq2

 

[Patty G]

City demolishes house searched in connection to Lisa case

Video within article.

David Park with KCMO Neighborhood and Community Services said the city declared the home a "dangerous building". The homeowner said that he was never contacted by the city or police in regards to the matter.

Park said, however, that officials have the authority to demolish a structure in the case of an emergency according to Kansas City's Code of Ordinances Sec. 56-540.

The document states that:
Sec. 56-540. - Emergencies.
(a) Emergency defined. For the purpose of this article, an emergency is hereby defined as any case where it reasonably appears there is immediate danger to the health, life, safety or welfare of any person because of a dangerous condition which exists in violation of this article.

(b) Authority. In any emergency case, the director of neighborhood and community services shall have the power to take emergency measures to abate or to correct such dangerous condition. The emergency power herein granted shall include power to cause the immediate vacation of any building and the summary correction of any emergency condition which exists in violation of this article, including but not limited to demolition of dangerous buildings.

(c) Emergency order not appealable. No appeal to the property maintenance appeals board shall lie from an emergency order, and such order shall not be reviewed or stayed other than by the circuit court of the county in which the premises is located on which the emergency condition exists.

(d) Costs of abatement. The costs of emergency abatement shall be recovered as provided in section 56-541 for the recovery of costs.


Read more: http://www.nbcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ched-in-connection-to-lisa-case#ixzz1aWMHwRP4

 

[Pensfan]

http://www.kmbc.com/video/29455026/detail.html

That house was on the list (quoted a page or two back from the city list) as having been boarded up on 10/5/2011. You can clearly see, in the above video that none of the windows were boarded over. WTH?

This could be because of an untruthful slum landlord statement or paperwork the slum landlord mailed in to the city stating that he completed the required repairs.

The fire escape in the rented Victorian home behind mine will not lower from the third floor because it is completely rusted. The slum landlord informed the city inspector last month that it was "fixed". The carriage house doors are hanging by one hinge and bats are roosting in there. (Bats have rabies.) He informed the city inspector that he fixed these too. (I call the inspector once a month about this slum. grumble grumble)

 

[Jaxson]

I am thinking the house was slated for demo today and when LE heard the news they decided they better check it out before hand to cover that base. If the city had just come in and dozed it with no search before hand LE would have looked bad. It is just moo that the search at this property meant nothing.

 

[Just K]

I am thinking the house was slated for demo today and when LE heard the news they decided they better check it out before hand to cover that base. If the city had just come in and dozed it with no search before hand LE would have looked bad. It is just moo that the search at this property meant nothing.

It could have been a city employee, I guess, who gave LE the heads up. If that happened then I would feel much better yet I still wonder why the city list says that it was "OFFICIALLY BOARDED UP"
on 10/5/2011. What does "officially" mean and who "officially did the work?" Because no one boarded that house up on 10/5/2011.

 

[Jaxson]

It could have been a city employee, I guess, who gave LE the heads up. If that happened then I would feel much better yet I still wonder why the city list says that it was "OFFICIALLY BOARDED UP"
on 10/5/2011. What does "officially" mean and who "officially did the work?" Because no one boarded that house up on 10/5/2011.

Maybe 'boarded up' is just a term for no one lives here or is ever going to so lets slate it for demo?

Or someone didn't bother to board it up knowing it was coming down soon anyway. I don't believe the landlord is surprised. He had to have known it was coming.

I also thing if LE searched that property based on a tip it wouldn't have come down yet. They would have stopped it. They would want to do a more thorough search and possibly have it standing for trial. Just can't believe they would 'slam the door' on a tip that quickly.

 

[RANCH]

http://www.kmbc.com/video/29455026/detail.html

That house was on the list (***quoted a page or two back from the city list) as having been boarded up on 10/5/2011. You can clearly see, in the above video, that none of the windows were boarded over. WTH?


*** from an earlier post In da Middle said:

http://kivaweb.kcmo.org/kivanet/2/rfs/lookup/index.cfm

"This site is kinda tricky to navigate, but his (the owner's) story is not quite right. With all of the liens and assessments placed on this place and all of the repairs it needed, this place would never be worth fixing up IMO. It was boarded up after a LONG history of city intervention was needed. It was officially boarded up on 10/5 according to the history after being on the list to be boarded up since 9/6/11.

I am sure the owner's next to them are not sorry to see it go. "

Maybe this cities definition of boarded up is different than most. Makes little sense to me to go to the expense of boarding up a house, and to go ahead and knock it down less than a week later.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I don't find it odd at all that the city would board up a house less than a week before it's demolished. I've seen it happen multiple times.

(NOLA)

JMO

 

[wfgodot]

Poor old house stood proudly for years, then had attention called to it, then the next thing you know - gone!

 

[RANCH]

I don't find it odd at all that the city would board up a house less than a week before it's demolished. I've seen it happen multiple times.

(NOLA)

JMO

I'm sorry you have seen that so often. Luckily it's not something I've seen a lot of. Still, seems like a waste of labor and materials for such a short period of time. MOO.

 

[Just K]

Maybe 'boarded up' is just a term for no one lives here or is ever going to so lets slate it for demo?

Or someone didn't bother to board it up knowing it was coming down soon anyway. I don't believe the landlord is surprised. He had to have known it was coming.

I also thing if LE searched that property based on a tip it wouldn't have come down yet. They would have stopped it. They would want to do a more thorough search and possibly have it standing for trial. Just can't believe they would 'slam the door' on a tip that quickly.

I sure hope you are right...I just can't shake the bad feeling I got when I saw the news about this location...was a gut thing and all along I have felt the family had something to do with everything until I saw that headline, anyway. My mind just went to a creepy city employee. Maybe I am just being worried over nothing.

 

[Cortne]

Very interesting. Does the city manager get involved in this kind of stuff?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm sorry you have seen that so often. Luckily it's not something I've seen a lot of. Still, seems like a waste of labor and materials for such a short period of time. MOO.

I work for an appraiser and we do a lot of state and city projects.

 

[RANCH]

I work for an appraiser and we do a lot of state and city projects.

Ah. Know wonder you see so many.

 

[tlcya]

FWIW, I think In da Middle has it right. The owner has probably had ample time over teh course of the last two years to take action on the various code violations he's been cited for.

First clue, owner hasn't been to the property in approximately two years!

Cities insist that weeds and grass be addressed on a regular basis, to discourage vagrants from squatting and children from being harmed exploring the spooky vacant house. They also insist that these properties be boarded up for the same reason. Based on the link provided by In da Middle, and my ample history in dealing with slumlords (via my husband's contracting property management business) I think it is more than likely this place was already slated for demo, and further the owner had probably been granted several extensions in which to address the concerns.

I also think it pretty much had to be destroyed after the events of the day as looky loos will surely show up and someone is liable to get hurt.

ETA I do sincerly hope the entire premise was thoroughly searched and cleared prior to this demo.

 

[chieftess]

Dang near about as odd a tangent as I can muster - but wasn't BTK a code enforcement officer for some jurisdication near KCMO?

Don't know his job, but he was in Wichita KS, not near KCMO

 

[TGIRecovered]

I would bet that the owner was hoping to be able to sell the home without revealing that there was an old well under the deck. Once it was all over the news that the well was being searched, the gig was up. it probably costs a lot of money to fill and secure an old well. Combined with any cosmetic repairs he'd have to make to sell the home, I doubt the owner would see any profit. MOO

Another thought about that house is that it would be a likely place to find stray momma cat with a litter of kittens. We still don't know where the kitten came from, do we?

 

[Mountain_Kat]

FWIW, I think In da Middle has it right. The owner has probably had ample time over teh course of the last two years to take action on the various code violations he's been cited for.

First clue, owner hasn't been to the property in approximately two years!

Cities insist that weeds and grass be addressed on a regular basis, to discourage vagrants from squatting and children from being harmed exploring the spooky vacant house. They also insist that these properties be boarded up for the same reason. Based on the link provided by In da Middle, and my ample history in dealing with slumlords (via my husband's contracting property management business) I think it is more than likely this place was already slated for demo, and further the owner had probably been granted several extensions in which to address the concerns.

I also think it pretty much had to be destroyed after the events of the day as looky loos will surely show up and someone is liable to get hurt.

ETA I do sincerly hope the entire premise was thoroughly searched and cleared prior to this demo.

There sure are alot of odd coincidences between this case and the Zahra Baker case, aren't there? Mulch fire/dumpster fire , 2 houses demolished, front of Baker house very similar to Irwin house, single large tree in front of both houses, clueless father , etc. etc. Not that any of it means anything, but it's eery none the less.

 

[Shelby1]

I totally get why the house needed to come down.


I just think the timing is unbelievably weird.




So many things in this case, timing-wise, are weird.