A problem which has been on-going for years, one Lakeville resident forced the media to revisit the problem foreclosures have on local cities. According to this KARE-11 piece (sent in by reader Nils), following the recent storms which downed trees all over Dakota County back in mid-June, one foreclosed homeowner did not follow through on cleanup of their property putting neighboring property at risk for more damage.
From the article:
The house on 202nd Street West has been neglected for more than a month, since a June 19 storm damaged several trees in front of the house and destroyed part of a large silver maple in its back yard. The tree is spread across about half of the yard, Cynthia Doudrick said.
The rest of the tree is still standing on the edge of the property, threatening the Doudrick’s residence, should it fall.
After receiving what was later determined to be misinformation from a Lakeville city staffer to contact the County, the problem was eventually resolved. According to Lakeville’s Community and Economic Development Director, foreclosed property owners have 10 days to two weeks to resolve issues such as damaged fallen trees threatening to destroy others’ property.
With Lakeville noting that there are 300 foreclosures within the city on average each year, a statistic they usually ignore while touting the 400+ building permits as evidence of growth instead, one may wonder why the city isn’t doing more to effectively mitigate the issues residents are having with foreclosed homes.
One KARE-11 commenter notes that they live near four homes in foreclosure and that they have been in various states of disarray since the fall. The commenter suggested they suck it up and get some free firewood. Good advice it seems as a walk through nearby Dodd Trail Park in Lakeville which sports numerous uprooted/downed trees shows several neighbors lining the park with fresh firewood stacked neatly in their backyards. If you’re going to do it for a park, why not the house next door?
What do you think about Lakeville’s response to the foreclosure situation? Do you think cities should have more legal leeway to do what they need to do to keep other residents’ properties safe when foreclosed property owners do nothing? Do you think Lakeville, and other cities, are making excuses in not properly caring for bank-owned properties because they don’t want to deal with the hassle of billing for services rendered? Do you live next to a foreclosed home? If so what have you had to deal with as a result? Has it gotten worse or better for you in the 4+ years it’s been a serious problem? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
No related posts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
July 13th, 2012 at 9:03 am
First off, the guy does have a right to mad. It would suck living next to a property that isn’t being taken care off. However, many people spend more time complaining about a problem than it would take to fix it. Especially if there is a risk of damage to your property. Stop being a bystander and get something done.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:34 am
I live next to a foreclosed property that is still in the redemption period for another month. Unfortunately not much I can do yet but sit and stare at the colossal weeds that have infiltrated the entire yard and toss mosquito dunks into the standing water of the small pond that is full of algae.
It will be cleaned up next month when the bank takes full control rest assured.
July 13th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
linkstorinks, why don’t you go run the mower over those weeds and throw down some Scotts?
July 13th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
And dig up those plants in the neighbors yard that you’d always thought would look nice in yours.
July 13th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
There’s a difference between a simple act of service and theft, Twoboot.
July 13th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Why would I spend money on their yard, I already spend enough on my own. One of the other neighbors did mow it last year and nearly ruined his mower he said never again as well. The bank will clean it up next month and put it on the market in a months time.
July 13th, 2012 at 5:36 pm
I’m in an HOA that handles most of the outdoor maintenance in our neighborhood, but for things that are the homeowner’s responsibility (leaving trash cans outside, etc.), the bank is held to the same standard as everyone else when it comes to bank-owned units and rule violations. This means they get written warnings and fines too if it comes down to it. I know my HOA has levied a fine against a mortgage company/bank at least once, but there haven’t been any issues lately.
July 13th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Sounds like a job for code enforcement Burnsville style. Oh wait, I forgot we think that’s too much.
Frankly, if the tree is threatening my property, I’m cutting it down. If we know the bank owns the place, they have no clue. I’m speaking from experience in my job on this – trying to track the bank down is one thing, and then actually getting them to spend a dime is another. I could show you what used to be a million dollar house that now has had a swimming pool in the basement for the last year after it was foreclosed on and the power was cut off (no sump pump anymore). We have no “code” that regulates quality of housing, maintenance of property, etc… Not worth the time and effort, and nobody wants to pay for it either. Unless it becomes a public health hazard, it won’t be touched (no legal authority to do so…)
July 13th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
For the record, it isn’t an issue of billing the property owner. First, a legal reason for the City to do anything has to be found. If the reason is it threatens an adjacent private property, is it the City’s legal responsibility? The answer is only if City Code somehow states that it is. Otherwise, the City has no legal recourse to recoup its costs.
Cities often charge for things like mowing, etc… and can do so if it is in City Code. If it weren’t, good luck with recovery.
July 13th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
I don’t know, if I lived next to a vacant home, I would take care of the yard simply because I wouldn’t want to do what you are saying – stare at colossal weeds, etc. It would be worth the $25 or whatever the bag of Weed & Feed costs. Just seems like the thing to do.
July 13th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
The owners…i.e. the bank, should be required to do exactly the same thing that a homeowner would be required to do. Just because they are a bank doesn’t mean they get to avoid keeping up the property. Unfortunately, that is exactly what they tend to do. Once they have possession, if they don’t intend to put it on the market right away it just sits.
Ok… now the downside to all that. Banks stuck paying that just charge us more. One of the catch 22′s of our society, is that in the end, the consumer always pays.
July 13th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
MSPD-
The home is not completely vacant yet. no way I am stepping foot onto someones property to do what you would do. It will be taken care of once the redemption period is over and they are out. I have plenty of chemicals to treat just about anything since I have a golf green in my backyard, but in no way am I spraying anything on a property I do not have the authority to do so.
July 14th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
I guess I didn’t know “redemption period” meant there were still people living in there. I assumed it meant it was vacant. I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to foreclosure.
And again, WTF is with the serial thumbs downers. Someone has a problem with me saying it’s a decent thing to do to help maintain a vacant property (or so I thought)? Lame.
July 14th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
Can a city put a lien on a property for unpaid fees, the way they can for unpaid taxes? If so, that could be one way to deal with the issue.
July 15th, 2012 at 7:35 am
The story mentioned that’s how the City would handle it. Eventually they’ll do the work or pay to have it done, then add the cost to the Property Tax assessment.
I was actually in that house last week, the day after that story was on TV. The person living there was moving out, and we helped with the appliances. etc. She had been out of the house already and purchased a new townhome, so I don’t think anyone was living there or will be now until it goes through the whole foreclosure process.
July 15th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Foreclosure in MN is a long process. Nearly all go through something called a Sheriff’s sale. This is when the property is put up for sale by the County Sheriff. It is usually the bank that buys it, but if you wanted to you could make a bid on it, and the homeowner can also bid on it. After the sale, the no longer homeowner actually still is kinda the homeowner. They have a redemption period which I think is 6 months after the Sheriff’s sale. During that period the past homeowner maintains possession and has until those 6 months are over to come up with the total amount in cash. If they come up with the amount, they retain possession of the house, and the mortgage company goes and pounds sand.
Up side to redemption, it gives the homeowners time to sell the property (short sale) or buy it back. Now when the market isn’t so jacked up and people aren’t getting out of upside down homes, this sometimes work.
The down side to redemption is that you have homeowners sitting in homes that they don’t need to pay a dime for (no house payments during redemption, and probably not to many before then as well) and in the end they know they have to leave. Thus there is zero motivation for them to keep them up. i.e. mow the grass, fix the tree that fell down, fix the shingles, etc. The city can throw a fee on the tax assessment, but that won’t touch the current resident, it’s stuck on the home and they don’t own it anymore.
July 24th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Foreclosures are a blight. We should consider eminent domain as a solution. Banks have no business insisting on foreclosures for homeowners who are able to pay a lower monthly mortgage payment. The banks won’t make any more than fair market value in any case. Leaving homes vacant hurts everybody in the market.