Brad Will

Alderman, City of Kingston

(845) 616-8664 mobile
Facebook-1 Facebook-2 Twitter


NOTES ON HOUSE DEMOLITION & UNSAFE BUILDING LAW

Three unsafe/abandoned houses have been removed in the City using a $100,000 fund approved by the
Common Council just two months ago. With 50 such properties deemed as unsafe buildings, the potential cost
to remove all could be in the range of $1,500,000, and consume many years to complete.

We don't have that money, and we never will for this purpose. It is foolish to keep 're-upping' this account with
money that simply won't become available. There must consideration of creative approaches to this problem,
including:

seizing the properties by eminent domain - even and especially if owned by negligent banks - and reselling at
below market costs or giving them away) to private or not-for-profit developers willing to bear the costs of site
remediation and redevelopment; and

creating a limited, time sensitive, one-time incentive for property owners to fix their unsafe buildings and
avoid stiff fines and penalties.

We have a 6% solution now in the books - let's devise a 100% solution that is sustainable and cost effective.

---

According to the linked source, the national average cost for a house demolition is $8,747, approximately 26%
of the average of the three Kingston demolitions to date. In New York State, data shows an average of
$15,685, still less than half the average of the Kingston jobs. Just over an hour south in pricey New Jersey, the
average is $10,516.

Is there something unique about the torn down properties at 72 Garden St. and on Tompkins St. that warrants
such a high premium on demolition costs? How is it we managed to exhaust a $100,000 fund in a few months
on three buildings?

Data strongly suggests the City may have been able to save $50,000, and possibly much more, simply if these
demolition projects were competitively - and properly - bid.

Another determination prior to tearing down a building is what criteria is used to deem it "unsalvageable."

Finally - or more accurately INITIALLY - "embodied energy" is a real, measurable consideration
<http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/embodied-energy/?%24> Destroying structures that may in fact
be salvageable consumes a huge amount of wasted energy - that costs us real money - and could also
contribute to landfill mass. It is a "triple loser."

A single 2,000 square foot house teardown consumes the equivalent of 1,408,200 MBTU (million British
Thermal Units) of "lost and spent" energy. An idea of what that abstract figure represents can be expressed in
gallons of gas: 12,245. At the current price of $3.63/gal., the lost and spent energy comes at a price of $44,500.

Bear in mind this is separate from the $33,333 that went to the demolition contractor, on average, for the three
Kingston properties. In direct opposition to energy conservation and green, sustainable building philosophy
and practice, the real cost for each demolition is closer to $78,000a supremely wasteful and indefensible
proposition.

If we absolutely must tear down an unsafe building, it is our duty to not spend a single dollar more than the
market dictates. The issue will be revisited in the Common Council.

Reference:

http://www.hometowndemolitioncontractors.com/demolition-cost/building-demolition/house-demolition