Dearborn Dog Home Cleanup Tops $37,000, City Focuses on Demolition
It looks like the City of Dearborn will be left with a tab of more than $37,000 for the cleanup of a house where hundreds of dogs lived and died in squalor, the Detroit Free Press is reporting today.
While the paper quotes a city spokesman saying no decision has been made to try and recoup the costs, city officials we have spoken to say their primary focus is to raze the home and then offer homeowners on either side the chance to purchase half of the lot at a reduced cost.
Building and Safety inspectors say the home at 7840 Orchard is unfit for human habitation. There still are many steps that have to be taken before a demolition could take place, particularly since the homeowner could appeal any decision to demolish the structure.
For the earlier story on Deepsaidwhat.com, please click HERE.
The man who kept the Chihuahuas, Kenneth Lang Jr., 56, is living in a group home in Oakland County, according to his attorney, James Schmier of Birmingham.
For the full Free Press story, click HERE.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Why aren’t the owners of the home responsible for this?
August 27th, 2009 at 10:14 am
From the Free Press article:
“No decision has been made about whether to try to recoup the costs, but Coble said the city has the option of placing a tax lien on the property or suing the owner.”
August 27th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Good question Donna. If the owners were “responsible” in the first place, they would have kept the property in good repair and not let it get to this point, wouldn’t they? City ordinance allows the city to determine if a private property is blighted, and is a bane on the community, and also to demolish it, after a hearings and appeals process. City ordinance does not have a provision that allows them to pass the cost of demolition on to the negligent property owner. Maybe someone should propose an ordinance amendment to that effect to their councilperson.
Remember, the city does not do this type of thing for their own pleasure, those ordinances are on the books for the common good, for the benefit of all residents. As disgusted as we all are by this situation, why should this poor schmuck be forced to pay for his “home” forcibly taken from him and reduced to rubble, the land then divided and distributed to the adjacent neighbors? Thats why you pay such high taxes in a town like this…so you don’t have to live next to a house like that.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am
why should the homeowner pay? he never asked to have his house cleaned of his dogs. last time i checked, this was a free country. to that end, he can have as many dogs as he wants in his home.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It’s a free country, yes, which means local governments are free to create laws and ordinances which limit things property owners are allowed to do. A free country doesn’t just mean “do whatever the hell you want.”
Don’t worry about the city. They’ll recoup their losses when the property is sold.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Ok….Dearborn is getting very bad press with animals. Just read on the Freep “20 cats removed from Dearborn house”. It was an abandoned home on Roosevelt and is now full of fleas. Gross!
I feel bad for the Animal Shelter.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I also just saw the story about the house with all the cats! I really hope someone at City Hall can put out some wonderful, positive press releases about our great city in the next few weeks! I cringe when I hear another negative story on the news from Dearborn.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Johnny Christmas wrote:
Don’t worry about the city. They’ll recoup their losses when the property is sold.
Au contraire–the city practically gives these lots away after buying the property & paying for demo, etc. The thinking is that after one of thier “preferred” builders plops down a McMansion, the subsequent tax revenue (from the new house & the supposed boost in value said house gives to all it’s neighbors) is how the city will recoup, eventually. I’m not convinced this model worked in the best of times. Presently, I think we will be looking at alot of vacant lots for a mighty long time if the city continues on it’s buying spree of “marginal” houses.
SK wrote:
I feel bad for the Animal Shelter.
Well I feel bad for the cats!
September 1st, 2009 at 9:13 am
I see that in the latest P & G story about this, my dear freind Bob Messinger was quoted. Perhaps now that he has seen his name in the paper, he will consider retirement.