03
Jan
2006
The six houses on Fifth and Ripley streets - just north of the county jail and elevated railroad tracks - aren't much to look at.
A glance suggests they should be torn down. Among other things, peeled paint, broken and boarded-up windows, graffiti, and missing gutters tell a story of long-term neglect. Roofs have holes. The proximity to the railroad and county jail would give any potential home-buyer pause, and the houses face a concrete wall because of the elevated train tracks. And those things in turn would drive down price, which would certainly make repair and restoration economically infeasible.
That is the argument of Scott County, which owns the properties.
The county put out a request for proposal in 2004, and got no responses. The houses were eligible for the City of Davenport's HAPPEN program - through which owners can get assistance in fixing up vacant homes - but no applications were submitted. And this fall, the county took two approaches with the properties - requesting bids for both demolition and purchase. Nobody submitted the minimum purchase bid of $150,000 - the price the county paid for the properties in 1998.
Now the county has begun the process of tearing down the historic houses, all of them built in the late 19th Century. It presented a demolition application to the Davenport Historic Preservation Commission last month, and the commission is expected to make a recommendation at its January 10 meeting. After that, the issue will go before the Davenport City Council.
Scott County Administrator Ray Wierson said the county hopes to have the buildings torn down this spring, although it has no definite plans for the properties.
What's unusual in this case is that the question of the historic value of the properties doesn't stand alone. Mike Ryan, a member of the Davenport Fire Department and a past president of the Gold Coast & Hamburg Historic District Association, made a proposal to the Scott County Board of Supervisors to develop the properties into offices while preserving their facades.
The answer from the county: too little, too late.
But as Historic Preservation Commission and the city council weigh the fate of the properties in the coming months, Ryan's proposal will loom over their decision. While Ryan didn't offer the county what it wanted - in fact, he asked for $250,000 instead of offering the $150,000 the county requested - he made a reasonable proposal. And, he argues, the properties are worth saving.
The individual houses might not look good, Ryan said, but "the value's in the group" - six old houses in a historic central-city neighborhood. "It's the intact block."
One member of the city's nine-person Historic Preservation Commission said the body will almost certainly reject the county's demolition request. "There's a viable commercial plan on the table," said the commissioner, who asked not to be named.
The wild card is the relatively green city council, with a new mayor and four new members. In its first few months, this body will be forced to deal with these six historic but dilapidated properties, the county government that wants to tear them down, and the person who wants to save them.
Alderman Keith Meyer, who toured the houses this week, was not optimistic about the prospect of saving them. "It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to overcome the county's strategy of neglect," he wrote in an e-mail.
How It Came to This
The houses are located at 512 Ripley Street and 412, 416, 418, 420/422, and 424 West Fifth Street. All have been listed as structures on the National Register of Historic Places since 1980. In 1999, the Hamburg District in which the properties are located was designated as a local historic district. The historic designations mean that before being allowed to demolish the houses, the county needs to show that it's economically infeasible to save them.
The county purchased the houses - along with two adjacent vacant properties - in 1998 with the intention of demolishing them and putting a parking lot there. The goal was to replace parking that was expected to be lost with the construction of a new county jail.
The county also went to court in an attempt to secure the right to demolish the properties, circumventing the normal process involving the Historic Preservation Commission and the Davenport City Council. "They knew damn well the city wouldn't" approve a demolition application, said the Historic Preservation Commission member. The courts turned down the county's request.
The jail project was rejected by voters in 1998 and was on-hold until voters passed a new referendum in 2004. In the meantime, the properties have sat vacant and unmaintained.
Wierson wonders why there's any controversy at all. It's not as if the county ever intended to save the houses. "They were bought to be demolished," he said.
Furthermore, the county should not be blamed for the condition of the properties, Wierson said. When the houses were purchased, they were in a "state of disrepair. ... We did not buy properties that were in good shape."
The city's Historic Preservation Commission staff discussion related to the demolition application is succinct, however, in noting that the county bears some responsibility. "These buildings and their current condition are very much the result of a process of demolition by neglect," the staff reports on the individual properties read. "All but one of these structures were occupied at the time the county purchased them."
But then the staff says the damage has been done: "Nonetheless, it is staff's view that the current county leadership has handled this situation responsibly and that the petitioner should not be penalized for actions taken in the past. While this building remains salvageable, staff accepts the reality of the building's current condition and the logic that the property is unlikely to 'cost out' given the structure's location and after-renovation value should it be rehabbed. The subsidy needed to renovate the building given its current condition appears to substantially exceed the grants, etc. that may be available to support it. The Ryan proposal, given the large financial gap which the county proposed to bridge, seems to confirm this."
The report suggests approving the demolition request for five of the properties, and tabling one request until it has more information.
Wierson said that given the number of times the county has requested proposals and/or bids for the properties in the seven-plus years it's owned them, the city shouldn't hesitate to approve the demolition request.
The process "has almost a ludicrous result if it [the demolition request] is voted down," he said. "No one has an answer. ... This board has bent over backwards."
The Ryan Proposal
Mike Ryan thinks he has an answer. The problem is that it doesn't fit in with the county's plans, and it doesn't meet the county's requested sale price of $150,000.
"The buildings [except for 418 Fifth Street] are in not that bad a shape," he said.
Ryan's proposal focuses on the five Fifth Street properties. He wants to keep the original structures, take off additions, and add new construction connecting the buildings from the back. The fronts of the buildings would be restored, but he said he will probably add more-modern construction materials on the sides. "I can save the facades," he said. He added that he's "not a historic-preservation purist. Progress has to occur."
The proposal includes one set of bathrooms in the connecting part of the building. The goal, he said, would be to use the buildings for offices for attorneys. While the structures' location might not be attractive for residential use, they'd be perfect for lawyers, with their proximity to both the courthouse and the county jail.
Ryan's total plan would cost roughly $1.08 million, but that includes fixing up the house at 512 Ripley Street - which would eat up $340,000 by itself. Ryan said he'd prefer to start with the five houses on Fifth, and then the price tag would drop to $740,000. If one subtracts the $250,000 that Ryan asked for from the county, his portion of the financing would be in the neighborhood of $490,000 - an amount of capital he said he can secure.
Ryan's plan ends up about $400,000 short because of what he's requesting from the county and because he's asking the county to waive the $150,000 purchase price. "If the county's going to stay staunch at $150,000, this won't fly," Ryan said.
According to the demolition-application analysis prepared by city staff, the six houses and their property had an assessed value in 2005 of $67,234, so the county's price tag is less based on market value than an interest in recouping its initial investment. (In 2000, an appraiser valued the Fifth Street properties, including the houses, at only $27,000.) But even if the county were asking for less money, Ryan doesn't have the money to make the deal work without the county donating the properties and giving him an additional $250,000.
Ryan said he's run the numbers through the Small Business Development Center and the New Ventures Center, and he's confident they're workable. He added that he has to be sure of his numbers because of the personal stakes involved."I can't lose my ass on this," Ryan said. If the project fails, "I lose my house."
If the city approves the demolition request, Ryan said he would not go to court to try to block it. His hope is that the city rejects the demolition application, essentially bringing the county back to the negotiating table.
But Wierson said the county was very clear what it wanted: $150,000. "Just give us our investment back," he said.
That's why the Board of Supervisors was so cold to Ryan's proposal, he said. "Mike, you didn't read the specifications," Wierson recalled. "We were kind of dumbfounded."
Ryan reasons that his request for $250,000 is appropriate. The $400,000 (donated land plus cash) for his project, he said, is essentially equal to the cost of property acquisition, demolition, and construction of a new parking lot.
Wierson countered that the math doesn't work out like that. The county would still need additional parking, so the real cost of Ryan's project to the county would be $400,000 plus the money needed for new parking. "This is not property the county is looking to dispose of without any use for," he said.
But Ryan has a ready response. Whether the county builds a parking lot or houses juvenile-court services on the property, it will not generate any property taxes. He reasons that because his plan would put the properties back on the tax roll, the county will recoup over time its initial investment of $150,000 along with the $250,000 he's asking for.
The Historic Preservation Commission member added that the cost of rehabilitating the properties has grown because of the county's neglect; a contribution from the county toward rehab would recognize its role in the properties' current condition.
Beyond that, there are no definite plans for the property. While the county has identified future needs - for parking, and a permanent home for juvenile-court services - it doesn't have a specific proposal on which it is ready to act. A further delay wouldn't harm the county in any significant way. "There isn't an imminent need for demolition," said the member of the Historic Preservation Commission. "There is a need to do something."
Ryan noted that the Davenport 2025 comprehensive plan is clear on the issue of central-city development. Among the goals the report lists as critical, Davenport should "strengthen the existing built environment" and "reduce the number of under-occupied, abandoned, or vacant buildings/properties through adaptive reuse and infill."
"It's not about tearing buildings down," Ryan said.
The county is arguing that it's tearing down the houses because nobody with enough resources wants to save them.
But that's disingenuous. Yes, Ryan didn't meet the $150,000 asking price, and he asked for an additional $250,000 to take on the properties. But that money would leverage a half-million dollars in private investment in the inner city.
While the county claims it is only trying to recoup its original investment, it's asking for more than double what the properties are currently worth. Thus, critics argue, the $150,000 minimum-bid requirement was essentially a guarantee that the county would get no takers.
Ryan's proposal might not be ideal for the county, but given the historic value of the properties and the fact that the county has no pressing need for the houses to be torn down, it's an idea that's worth exploring and giving serious consideration.
So far, however, the Scott County Board of Supervisors has shown no interest in listening to Ryan. Over the next few months, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Davenport City Council have the opportunity to force it to do just that.
That is the argument of Scott County, which owns the properties.
The county put out a request for proposal in 2004, and got no responses. The houses were eligible for the City of Davenport's HAPPEN program - through which owners can get assistance in fixing up vacant homes - but no applications were submitted. And this fall, the county took two approaches with the properties - requesting bids for both demolition and purchase. Nobody submitted the minimum purchase bid of $150,000 - the price the county paid for the properties in 1998.
Now the county has begun the process of tearing down the historic houses, all of them built in the late 19th Century. It presented a demolition application to the Davenport Historic Preservation Commission last month, and the commission is expected to make a recommendation at its January 10 meeting. After that, the issue will go before the Davenport City Council.
Scott County Administrator Ray Wierson said the county hopes to have the buildings torn down this spring, although it has no definite plans for the properties.
What's unusual in this case is that the question of the historic value of the properties doesn't stand alone. Mike Ryan, a member of the Davenport Fire Department and a past president of the Gold Coast & Hamburg Historic District Association, made a proposal to the Scott County Board of Supervisors to develop the properties into offices while preserving their facades.
The answer from the county: too little, too late.
But as Historic Preservation Commission and the city council weigh the fate of the properties in the coming months, Ryan's proposal will loom over their decision. While Ryan didn't offer the county what it wanted - in fact, he asked for $250,000 instead of offering the $150,000 the county requested - he made a reasonable proposal. And, he argues, the properties are worth saving.
The individual houses might not look good, Ryan said, but "the value's in the group" - six old houses in a historic central-city neighborhood. "It's the intact block."
One member of the city's nine-person Historic Preservation Commission said the body will almost certainly reject the county's demolition request. "There's a viable commercial plan on the table," said the commissioner, who asked not to be named.
The wild card is the relatively green city council, with a new mayor and four new members. In its first few months, this body will be forced to deal with these six historic but dilapidated properties, the county government that wants to tear them down, and the person who wants to save them.
Alderman Keith Meyer, who toured the houses this week, was not optimistic about the prospect of saving them. "It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to overcome the county's strategy of neglect," he wrote in an e-mail.
How It Came to This
The houses are located at 512 Ripley Street and 412, 416, 418, 420/422, and 424 West Fifth Street. All have been listed as structures on the National Register of Historic Places since 1980. In 1999, the Hamburg District in which the properties are located was designated as a local historic district. The historic designations mean that before being allowed to demolish the houses, the county needs to show that it's economically infeasible to save them.
The county purchased the houses - along with two adjacent vacant properties - in 1998 with the intention of demolishing them and putting a parking lot there. The goal was to replace parking that was expected to be lost with the construction of a new county jail.
The county also went to court in an attempt to secure the right to demolish the properties, circumventing the normal process involving the Historic Preservation Commission and the Davenport City Council. "They knew damn well the city wouldn't" approve a demolition application, said the Historic Preservation Commission member. The courts turned down the county's request.
The jail project was rejected by voters in 1998 and was on-hold until voters passed a new referendum in 2004. In the meantime, the properties have sat vacant and unmaintained.
Wierson wonders why there's any controversy at all. It's not as if the county ever intended to save the houses. "They were bought to be demolished," he said.
Furthermore, the county should not be blamed for the condition of the properties, Wierson said. When the houses were purchased, they were in a "state of disrepair. ... We did not buy properties that were in good shape."
The city's Historic Preservation Commission staff discussion related to the demolition application is succinct, however, in noting that the county bears some responsibility. "These buildings and their current condition are very much the result of a process of demolition by neglect," the staff reports on the individual properties read. "All but one of these structures were occupied at the time the county purchased them."
But then the staff says the damage has been done: "Nonetheless, it is staff's view that the current county leadership has handled this situation responsibly and that the petitioner should not be penalized for actions taken in the past. While this building remains salvageable, staff accepts the reality of the building's current condition and the logic that the property is unlikely to 'cost out' given the structure's location and after-renovation value should it be rehabbed. The subsidy needed to renovate the building given its current condition appears to substantially exceed the grants, etc. that may be available to support it. The Ryan proposal, given the large financial gap which the county proposed to bridge, seems to confirm this."
The report suggests approving the demolition request for five of the properties, and tabling one request until it has more information.
Wierson said that given the number of times the county has requested proposals and/or bids for the properties in the seven-plus years it's owned them, the city shouldn't hesitate to approve the demolition request.
The process "has almost a ludicrous result if it [the demolition request] is voted down," he said. "No one has an answer. ... This board has bent over backwards."
The Ryan Proposal
Mike Ryan thinks he has an answer. The problem is that it doesn't fit in with the county's plans, and it doesn't meet the county's requested sale price of $150,000.
"The buildings [except for 418 Fifth Street] are in not that bad a shape," he said.
Ryan's proposal focuses on the five Fifth Street properties. He wants to keep the original structures, take off additions, and add new construction connecting the buildings from the back. The fronts of the buildings would be restored, but he said he will probably add more-modern construction materials on the sides. "I can save the facades," he said. He added that he's "not a historic-preservation purist. Progress has to occur."
The proposal includes one set of bathrooms in the connecting part of the building. The goal, he said, would be to use the buildings for offices for attorneys. While the structures' location might not be attractive for residential use, they'd be perfect for lawyers, with their proximity to both the courthouse and the county jail.
Ryan's total plan would cost roughly $1.08 million, but that includes fixing up the house at 512 Ripley Street - which would eat up $340,000 by itself. Ryan said he'd prefer to start with the five houses on Fifth, and then the price tag would drop to $740,000. If one subtracts the $250,000 that Ryan asked for from the county, his portion of the financing would be in the neighborhood of $490,000 - an amount of capital he said he can secure.
Ryan's plan ends up about $400,000 short because of what he's requesting from the county and because he's asking the county to waive the $150,000 purchase price. "If the county's going to stay staunch at $150,000, this won't fly," Ryan said.
According to the demolition-application analysis prepared by city staff, the six houses and their property had an assessed value in 2005 of $67,234, so the county's price tag is less based on market value than an interest in recouping its initial investment. (In 2000, an appraiser valued the Fifth Street properties, including the houses, at only $27,000.) But even if the county were asking for less money, Ryan doesn't have the money to make the deal work without the county donating the properties and giving him an additional $250,000.
Ryan said he's run the numbers through the Small Business Development Center and the New Ventures Center, and he's confident they're workable. He added that he has to be sure of his numbers because of the personal stakes involved."I can't lose my ass on this," Ryan said. If the project fails, "I lose my house."
If the city approves the demolition request, Ryan said he would not go to court to try to block it. His hope is that the city rejects the demolition application, essentially bringing the county back to the negotiating table.
But Wierson said the county was very clear what it wanted: $150,000. "Just give us our investment back," he said.
That's why the Board of Supervisors was so cold to Ryan's proposal, he said. "Mike, you didn't read the specifications," Wierson recalled. "We were kind of dumbfounded."
Ryan reasons that his request for $250,000 is appropriate. The $400,000 (donated land plus cash) for his project, he said, is essentially equal to the cost of property acquisition, demolition, and construction of a new parking lot.
Wierson countered that the math doesn't work out like that. The county would still need additional parking, so the real cost of Ryan's project to the county would be $400,000 plus the money needed for new parking. "This is not property the county is looking to dispose of without any use for," he said.
But Ryan has a ready response. Whether the county builds a parking lot or houses juvenile-court services on the property, it will not generate any property taxes. He reasons that because his plan would put the properties back on the tax roll, the county will recoup over time its initial investment of $150,000 along with the $250,000 he's asking for.
The Historic Preservation Commission member added that the cost of rehabilitating the properties has grown because of the county's neglect; a contribution from the county toward rehab would recognize its role in the properties' current condition.
Beyond that, there are no definite plans for the property. While the county has identified future needs - for parking, and a permanent home for juvenile-court services - it doesn't have a specific proposal on which it is ready to act. A further delay wouldn't harm the county in any significant way. "There isn't an imminent need for demolition," said the member of the Historic Preservation Commission. "There is a need to do something."
Ryan noted that the Davenport 2025 comprehensive plan is clear on the issue of central-city development. Among the goals the report lists as critical, Davenport should "strengthen the existing built environment" and "reduce the number of under-occupied, abandoned, or vacant buildings/properties through adaptive reuse and infill."
"It's not about tearing buildings down," Ryan said.
The county is arguing that it's tearing down the houses because nobody with enough resources wants to save them.
But that's disingenuous. Yes, Ryan didn't meet the $150,000 asking price, and he asked for an additional $250,000 to take on the properties. But that money would leverage a half-million dollars in private investment in the inner city.
While the county claims it is only trying to recoup its original investment, it's asking for more than double what the properties are currently worth. Thus, critics argue, the $150,000 minimum-bid requirement was essentially a guarantee that the county would get no takers.
Ryan's proposal might not be ideal for the county, but given the historic value of the properties and the fact that the county has no pressing need for the houses to be torn down, it's an idea that's worth exploring and giving serious consideration.
So far, however, the Scott County Board of Supervisors has shown no interest in listening to Ryan. Over the next few months, the Historic Preservation Commission and the Davenport City Council have the opportunity to force it to do just that.
