demolition by neglect ordinance proposed in east whiteland

25710932806_283b1249fd_kEast Whiteland has proposed a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance:

Ordinance-DemolitionbyNeglect (East Whiteland)

The problem with a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance is what does it actually save? It’s not like whatever fines they impose will be extraordinarily punitive to a developer, will it?  Two examples of active demolition by neglect in my opinion are Linden Hall or the historic house rotting next to Clews and Strawbridge .

17047192442_1b07ce4e3d_oWhat would be being charged with demolition by neglect actually do except possibly be considered by a developer to be a “cost of doing business”?

dsc_1477And then there are the non-developer demolition by neglect instances. The houses along Sproul Road or 352, for example.  Some are owner occupied or rented, others vacant with absentee landlords and or estates.  And along there is an entrance to a what? A 10 acre or so8588760553_1af1d84a7b_o parcel approved for development a few years ago? (Which is what I wondered why the surveyors were out on King near Frazer Road and King that although the township could never tell me why the surveyors were out, I wondered after the fact if that was why? But I digress.)Demolition by Neglect 1

How would this proposed ordinance affect homeowners or renters who might not have any financial choice in how the property looks?

Or what about abandoned factory sites like Bishop Tube?  While it is pending whatever happens it is crumbling and rotting away. There are photos on the Internet going back to 2010 that are interior shots. Shouldn’t an Demolition by Neglect 2ordinance like this also be able to encompass properties like that? After all they are also demolition by neglect pending redevelopment of the property, only it’s not historic except for the chemicals present like TCE.

I am not against a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance. I just wonder if it will be punitive towards those who truly deserve it? And it is not just developers who let historic properties rot. And it’s not just historic properties which suffer from demolition by neglect.




1 thought on “demolition by neglect ordinance proposed in east whiteland

  1. The ordinance is a start. A 5 year period of no building permit as part of enforcement would be better than one yr. One year is a “blink” in development. You are absolutely right- a monetary fine is useless. The supervisors need to recognize the urgency of this ordinance or it will be too little too late as usual. Thanks for staying on this story!

Comments are closed.