1. Demolitions, Vacant and/or Abandoned Properties Illinois Municipal League Conference September 2015

2. Why Demolition? What this presentation is ALL about:
Why this is important
What to demo and how
How to expedite the process
How to recover your costs

3. Why Demolition?
Broken Window Theory

4. Broken Window Theory
One broken window, left unrepaired, leads to more broken windows as the appearance is given that no one cares or protects the property, that the building becomes increasingly more deteriorated, and that the deterioration may have a ripple effect.

5. Broken Window Theory

6. Broken Window Theory
Buildings that are indefinitely vacant, or vacant and in a state of disrepair, or boarded, contribute to a decrease in surrounding property values, discourage investment in neighboring properties, provide a location for criminal activity, undermine the aesthetic character of the neighborhood and City, and have other deleterious effects.

7. Broken Window Theory

8. Why Demolition?
Dissatisfied Neighbors

9. Why Demolition? Most complaints actually start with the neighbors.
Tall grass
Weeds
Rodents and pests
Other nuisance complaints

10. Neighborhood Dangers
Crime rates
Vandalism
Drug use

11. Why Demolition?
And the inevitable call to the Mayor’s office

12. The Process
Where do you start?

13. Setting Priorities The worst of the worst Corridors Low-hanging fruit
Tax-delinquent properties
Willing property owners

14. Emergencies What constitutes an emergency?
Least restrictive means necessary
What do your ordinances say?

15. Prepping a Case for Counsel
Photographs
Code violation and citation history
Condemnation history
Title confirmation - recent

16. Funding & Recovery Sources
General funds
TIF funds
Special funds/donations
Demolition agreements
Grants
IDNR
IHDA
Abandoned Properties
Blight Reduction
Liens
Reduce cost through recycling and salvage

17. Necessary proof for a demolition
65 ILCS 5/ (a)
Building or Structure AND
Which are Dangerous or Unsafe OR
Which are Uncompleted and Abandoned
Plus, Proof required by an Illinois Supreme Court Opinions:
Building or Structure is “Beyond Reasonable repair” (i.e., cannot Be Repaired for a Reasonable Cost [Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich, 810 N.E.2d 13 (2004)]
Owners of Building or Structure have been given a “reasonable amount” of time to repair the Building or Structure [City of Aurora v. Meyer, 230 N.E.2d 200 (1967)]

18. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO CAUSE/REQUIRE
DEMOLISH the Building or Structure OR
REPAIR the Building or Structure OR
ENCLOSE the Building or Structure AND
REMOVE from the Building or Structure
Garbage or
Debris or
Substances or Materials which are
Hazardous or
Noxious or
Unhealthy.

19. WHO PAYS THE COST FOR THESE MUNICIPAL ACTIONS?
Owner
(NOTE: City/Village Can Sue To “Cause The” Demolition, et al) by a:
Court Order For Mandatory Injunction OR
Judgment For Monetary Damages
Lien For Demolition Costs (Paid when property is sold – NOTE: Property may be sold quicker as it may be MORE Valuable once the dilapidated building or structure is removed)
City by a Court Order Allowing Demolition

20. PHILOSOPHY UNDERLYING DEMOLITION
“Demolition is justified only if repair makes so little economic sense that it is unlikely that an owner would make use of any further opportunity to repair.” (City of Aurora v Meyer)
Demolitions “employed with restraint and only if dangers cannot be otherwise abated.”
“Only if danger cannot be abated in any other way and absolute necessity exists”
“Where hazardous conditions may be remedied without major reconstruction the building may not be destroyed).” (City of Aurora v Meyer)
“[D]emolition is justified only if repair makes so little economic sense that it is unlikely that an owner would make use of any further opportunity to repair.” [Village of Lake Villa v. Stokovich]

21. REASONABLE COST OF REPAIR #1 METHOD (City of Aurora v. Meyer)
Cost of Repair of Dangerous Conditions Value of Building in Dilapidated State
Is the cost of repair high enough to be a
Substantial Reconstruction of the Building?
Requires Expert Witnesses to testify as to their OPINION of Value and Costs of Repair
Can Be Unreasonable, regardless of Cost, if the needed repairs are violate Ordinances

22. REASONABLE COST OF REPAIR #2 METHOD (Village of Ringwood v
REASONABLE COST OF REPAIR #2 METHOD (Village of Ringwood v. Foster, 2010 & 2013 Opinions)
UNREASONABLE if Cost of Repair of ALL damage to Building is 50% or more of the Replacement Cost of the Building
Test is Listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance which Bans 50% or more repair of Non-Conforming Structures
Rejects Argument that trial court must use a "a flexible standard ... of reasonableness" rather than "a specific percentage.

23. FACTORS TO DETERMINE IF REASONABLE REPAIRS
Delay in Owners Applying For Permit to Begin Repair Work (Before & After 15 Day Notice)
Length of Time Building Has Been In Dilapidated Condition
Are Repairs really a “Substantial Reconstruction” of the Building (City of Aurora v. Meyer)
Are Needed Repairs Prohibited By Existing Municipal Ordinance or State/Federal Law

24. EXAMPLE OF REASONABLE COST OF REPAIR
$17,000 Value of Building Today Unrepaired (Expert Witness Testimony)
$95,000 Value of Building Once Repaired According to Building & Other Codes Code Standards (Expert Witness Testimony)
$11,000 Cost of Labor and Materials to Repair Building or Structure (Expert Witness Testimony)  
$ 11,000 = > 0.50 So Cost of Repair is NOT Reasonable and Judge May Order The
$ 17,000 Building's Demolition
(Village of Ringwood v. Foster)

25. ALTERNATIVELY CAN PETITION TO HAVE BUILDING DECLARED ABANDONED & MUNICIPALITY CAN BECOME LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
65 ILCS 5/ (d)
(A) Property is Tax Delinquent OR Unpaid Water Bills for 2 or more years, AND
(B) Unoccupied By A LEGAL Resident, AND
(C) Property contains a Dangerous or Unsafe Building Per 65 ILCS 5/ (a)

26. EMERGENCY DEMOLITIONS Turpen v. City of St. Francisville, 495 N. E
EMERGENCY DEMOLITIONS Turpen v. City of St. Francisville, 495 N.E.2d 1351 (5th Dist. 1986)
Part of a Municipality's Inherent “Police Power” Under The Common Law “Police Power” is the Authority to Regulate to protect its Residents' Health Safety Morals General Welfare WITHOUT First Filing A Lawsuit

27. WHEN CAN A MUNICIPALITY DO AN EMERGENCY DEMOLITION?
To Abate A Nuisance OR
Take Appropriate Emergency Measures
When a Building is Structurally Dilapidated
Poses an IMMINENT Danger to Public Health, Safety or Welfare

28. WHAT DOES “IMMINENT” MEAN?
Action is “Essential” To Preserve health, safety and welfare of citizens (Turpen)
Very, Very Rare – Judges Do NOT Like Being Excluded From Decision
Building is about to fall down and kill Little Suzy at any moment
If Building is open to children, animals or elements, can it be enclosed?

29. APPELLATE COURT'S EXPLANATION OF “IMMINENT”
Turpen v. City of St. Francisville, 495 N.E.2d 1351 (5th Dist. 1986) “Every moment's delay in the removal of the danger exposes the populace to danger.”

30. IMMINENT?

31. IMMINENT?

32. IMMINENT?

33. IMMINENT?

34. FAST TRACK DEMOLITIONS
65 ILCS 5/ (e) ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES (A) Residential or Commercial Building, AND (B) 3 Stories or Less in Height (per Municipality's Building Code), AND (C) Building Code Enforcement Officer determines and declares (1) open and vacant, AND (2) immediate and continuing hazard to the community.

35. POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
(A) Demolish the Building (B) Repair the Building (C) Enclose The Building (D) Removal of Substances or Materials that are (1) Garbage (2) Debris (3) Hazardous (4) Noxious (5) Unhealthy

36. ACTIONS TO ENFORCE
(A) Building Code Enforcement Officer posts a Notice (1) at least 2 feet by 2 feet (2) on the front of the Building (3) dated as of the date of posting (4) states that unless the building is demolished, etc. so that an immediate and continuing hazard no longer exists (5) states that the building may be demolished, etc. by the Municipality (B) Within 30 days of posting of the Notice, send by certified mail, RRR, a Notice To Remediate to persons in interest stating the intent of the Municipality to demolish, etc. (C) Publish a Notice in newspaper of general circulation for 3 consecutive days with the above-listed information (D) Record in Office of the County Recorder of Deeds (or in Registrar of Titles if Torrens Act applies) a copy of the Notice To Remediate sent by certified mail

37. RESPONSE BY PERSON IN INTEREST
Can File a Complaint/Objection To Demolition In Local Circuit Court to prevent Demolition If do not file a Complaint or Objection To Demolition, then after 30 Days following the last date of publication of the Notice To Remediate the Municipality Can Demolish, etc., the building

38. “TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
HOW TO SPEED UP THE DEMOLITION PROCESS WHEN YOU ARE CONFRONTING A COURT SYSTEM THAT IS INDIFFERENT

39. “TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
“TRICKS OF THE TRADE” IN PRESENTING MOTIONS AND EXPEDITING COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR JUDICIALLY AUTHORIZED DEMOLITIONS

40. “TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
HOW TO FIND PARTY DEFENDANTS WHEN THEY PLAY HARD TO GET, AND HOW TO COLLECT OUR MONEY FOR THE DEMOLITION

41. HOW TO USE LIENS EFFECTIVELY
“TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
HOW TO USE LIENS EFFECTIVELY

42. HOW TO GET A JUDICIAL DEED IF DESIRED
“TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
HOW TO GET A JUDICIAL DEED IF DESIRED

43. “TRICKS OF THE TRADE”
ATTORNEY’S FEES

44. UPDATED CASE LAW Never forget Lake Villa v. Stokovich Recent cases
Kathrein v. City of Evanston(7th Cir. May 15, 2014)
RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio, No (5th Cir. April 23, 2013).
City of Decatur v. Ballinger, 2013 IL App (4th) (April 16, 2013).
Ballinger v. City of Danville, 2012 IL App (4th) (March 13, 2012).

45. POST-DEMOLITION WHEN TO TAKE TITLE
Have neighbors indicated a desire to take care of the property
Community Gardens
Strategic use for the City
Can the City be a conduit for a useful titleholder
Are we leaving it worse than we found it

46. POST-DEMOLITION

47. POST-DEMOLITION

48. POST-DEMOLITION
SURPRISES ALONG THE WAY!

49. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS