By Charles Layton
It’s been 29 months since Neptune Township cited the owner of the unoccupied house at 24 McClintock Street for maintenance violations, including rotted porch posts, broken windows and lack of paint.
Recalculating…
It’s been eight months since the Historic Preservation Commission noticed that none of those repairs had been made and asked the Township to revisit the problem. It’s also been eight months since 29 neighbors, in a signed petition, told Township officials they feared the place could catch fire and cause a conflagration.
Recalculating…
It’s been a little over seven months since the owner, Jason Richelson of Brooklyn, NY, paid a $1,000 fine in Municipal Court and promised to remedy all of the cited problems by Christmas week of 2011.
Recalculating…
It’s been a month and a half since Richelson reneged on that court agreement. The neighbors said he had made no repairs at all, not even replacing the broken window panes.
The front porch as it looked on Monday afternoon. Photos by Charles Layton
However, Lynn Merry, the organizer of the neighbors’ petition, looked across the street last Friday and saw a guy from Sawbucks Construction replacing broken window panes. “This was the first human sighting I have seen at the property for three years,” she said.
I dropped by on Monday and found the Sawbucks man prying out rusted nails in order to remove rotten boards on the front porch. He told me he intended to fix the porch, and that he’d probably keep working for at least a few more days, but that he didn’t know what the owner’s eventual plans might be.
Richelson is due for another court hearing on Thursday of next week, at which time the Township’s attorney, Gene Anthony, has said he intends to ask the Municipal Court judge to declare Richelson in default of his June plea agreement, impose another $1,000 fine and perhaps take further action. One possibility could be for the Township to declare the house in imminent danger of collapse so it could be demolished. That course would require further procedural steps, including a hearing before the Township Committee.
Although my phone calls to Richelson in Brooklyn have not been returned, and I don’t know his situation, it seems clear that his investment in this property was a sad mistake. He purchased it in 2005 for $400,000, with a 30-year mortgage of $380,000. He has had the property on the market in recent years, but it has not found a buyer. And the repairs now being made would seem to fall far short of the total rehab that would appear to be required.
The house is currently listed on the real estate site http://www.zillow.com with the following notation: “Attention Builders. We need to move this house. All offers will be entertained. Only builders should consider because it needs to be rebuilt completely. It is only 1 block from the beach though so you could build something quite nice.” The ad includes an estimated value (or “Zestimate”) of $397,900. — CL
UPDATE, Feb. 8: Last week’s Coaster quoted Mayor Randy Bishop as saying that this property was in foreclosure. That report, it turns out, was in error. We asked various Township officials if they could confirm the report of foreclosure, and on Wednesday Committeewoman Mary Beth Jahn informed us that taxes on the house are current through the first quarter of 2012 and that the Township has no record of any foreclosure on 24 McClintock.
Now it's fixed.
This window pane had been busted for at least three years.
That Zillow ad is a year or two old.
Thank you Frank S.
A few panes of glass and some minor porch repairs do not make this property any less of a fire hazard. These repairs are most likely being made in preparation for the upcoming court date. They will show compliance and request an additional 6 months to make the needed repairs. It is my hope that the court will demand more of them this time. As I type this, the 2nd floor back door remains wide open, welcoming both critters and squatters
Frank S.
If by exclusionary you mean that people who cannot afford to maintain their homes would be excluded, then that is what I mean. Of course, as I described, only new owners would be exposed to the higher lease rent and/or a financial screen. BTW, if you cannot afford $8K for a 99-year lease (all up front at time of purchase), then you should not buy a house in this town. I spent $14K having my roof redone two years ago and $8K is nothing compared to what you will have to be spending to maintain your home.
I know and value my neighbors — some of whom are long, long timers. I nonetheless expect everyone to keep their houses up.
While it states above that the CMA has no real power, my understanding is that they used to wield very considerable power over who could live in OG. I think what is being suggested is that they wield some of that power again, but focus it on buyers’ financial strength and commitment to contributing to the historic district through upkeep and restoration of their home. I also like the idea of the rent being set much higher on new leases so that there is money available to improve the look/facilities of OG’s infrastructure.
The guy is paying his mortgage and his taxes (imagine! paying OG taxes on that place!). He HAS the money, he’s just not SPENDING the money.
What can the OGCMA require as a condition of granting a lease going forward? Could they require some form of much higher rent, or bond? The goal would be to help ensure that buyers are financially sound or, at least, that there is some money in the bank to fix up derelict houses (to be recouped as tax leins) Obviously this would apply only to new leases (but the town is steadily turning over).
A Co-op in NYC is not a home in OG. No comparison whatsoever. I’m happy that Bythesea had the $$ to buy their co-op with 50% down and have 50% left over. However most of us average ordinary folk would not be able to do so. With say average price of a decent home in OG being $400,000 then one would need to be $400,000 liquid (50% down payment + 50% left over). While affluent newcomers to OG may have this kind of $$ most here do not nor do most newlyweds and young folk just starting out in their lives.
The concerns of the OGCMA are of a spiritual/religious nature, not of a real estate management concern or control. Read your lease and see that it doesn’t really touch upon real estate issues but rather is more about culture, spirituality, and a victorian olde fashioned sense of etiquette and manners.
“Perhaps the 99-year rent should be $8,000.” If spread over how long one lives in their home which say is 20 years on average that would be $400 a year. Which would be nearly 38 times current yearly rent of $10.50. If spread over 99 years that would be $81 a year or 8 times current rent. Bythesea was not clear/did not clarify how this $8,000 would be levied. Sure hope they didn’t mean right up front upon acquiring a home here.
I find this suggestion and tone to be offensive and exclusionary. While the affluent newcomers might be able to afford this, one must remember that there are a lot of seniors and not so affluent folks living here. Many seniors living on limited incomes (many on just medicare) and many folks who are frankly just getting by and making ends meet can barely pay the high taxes here in OG as it is. They too are our neighbors and you should think about and care about them and their situation.
Bythesea,
A co-op is a form of an organization in which you own shares in a corporation and have a leasehold on your unit. You don’t actually own the unit. It is the corporation that you are buying a piece of, therefore your financials matter to the corporation. This town is not a corporation and the CMA, as owners of the land, cannot require that kind of scrutiny because you are not buying into the CMA. You are merely renting their land. The majority of leases in town, which go back a very long time, are written in such a way that they really cannot be changed. It is an “in perpetuity” document which means – forever.
The CMA will never be able to impose conditions on potential home buyers because they don’t own the houses on the land they rent. The reason a New York City co-op can impose conditions on potential buyers is because the whole building–and the land underneath it (although there are a few exceptions)–is owned collectively. In a co-op, you don’t own your apartment; you own shares in the building, which entitles you to lease your unit. As someone who once helped turn a New York rental building into a co-op, believe me: you would not want to go through that process in Ocean Grove, even if it was possible.
As to your second question, Bythesea, there probably isn’t much value to a homeowner in having the CMA own the land. Like any other landlord/tenant relationship, the value accrues to the entity collecting the rent. The CMA is a religious organization; they don’t have a code enforcement division, and I don’t think we want them to establish one.
Do these cosmetic ‘fixes’ do anything to allay the neighbors fears of this place being an abandoned fire hazzard? Will it stop any squatters or the nesting fauna? Far too little, far too late.
i am grateful, as i believe many are for the existence and excellence @ all levels of this unique town BLOG….but i must voice my sadness at reading a portion of a “bythesea’s” comments on the 24 mcclintock issue….and let me acknowledge that “bythesea” offers many thoughtful suggestions as to how we might better prevent issues like this from arising in the future….
BUT OMG!! did you really say, “Since OGCMA can no longer filter out folks for religious/social reasons……” …so people with feelings like yours really do STILL exist in ocean grove!!! how very sad…i’m not a chronic “pollyana” by any means, but i so want to believe that those of you who thought that way in years past, have mellowed and have realized how much more wonderful a community we have because of the increased diversity in the grove…
now let me be clear, i am not happy, and in fact i am very saddened and scared by the increase of crime in our community and unfortunately i do feel much of that may come from the “transitional” housing units in the grove and the lack of careful screening by sectiion 8 property owners….
but, to direct your statement “Since OGCMA can no longer filter out folks for religious/social reasons, at least they can make sure that potential buyers have the resources to maintain their properties” to those residents capable of being a homeowner is to me beyond heartbreaking!!
Tear it down. Anyone who has seen this place knows that that is the only possible resolution. An eysore and a fire hazard. Also, please no sympathy for the owner. Anyone who buys a second home with only 5% down and no financial resources deserves what is coming to them.
I’m happy to hear that there is activity on this disaster, but really … replacing window panes?? And fixing the front porch?? Do they want my seamstress’ number for curtains?
Board it up until it can be torn down.
Hi Charles:
First, thanks for your GREAT job in supporting this blog. You are awesome.
I was not suggesting that the mortgage deals be monitored. Rather, before a land lease is issued, the buyer would have to demonstrate financial resources sufficient that they could afford to maintain their house. In the case of my co-op, the requirement for liquid financial reserves = to 50% of the unit’s value was independent of any loan I took to buy the unit (although they also required that no more than 50% of the unit’s purchase price be financed).
Perhaps I am wrong, but can’t the OGCMA define requirements that must be met in order for a purchaser to be qualified for a land lease? Obviously, these cannot include any items that would get them in trouble with the Fair Housing statutes, but it seems like requiring a certain level of financial strength is not in violation of the law. If that is a problem, how do the many hundreds of co-ops in NYC get away with it? [BTW, these are rhetorical questions, as I know that this is not a real estate lawyers blog].
Perhaps my real questions is what value is there in the OGCMA continuing to own the land under our houses if they do not choose to exercise any control? I
The OGCMA has no authority to monitor people’s mortgage deals. This mortgage was made during the time when banks all over the country were giving out home loans — as fast as they could — to people who couldn’t afford them. The old rules about qualifying for a mortgage were in abeyance. This house, one can assume, was part of the housing bubble that, when it burst, drove the country’s whole economy down, leaving the landcsape littered with blighted, abandoned homes.
The house at 69 Webb may be another example of that phenomenon.
This owner should never have been allowed to buy this house. The OGCMA should do a financial means check of all perspective buyers, similar to what NYC co-ops do. Since OGCMA can no longer filter out folks for religious/social reasons, at least they can make sure that potential buyers have the resources to maintain their properties. I have a one bedroom co-op in the City and I had to demonstrate that I had 50% of the value of my unit in liquid financial resources. Why can’t OGCMA do the same?
Another idea is to increase the leasehold rent to an amount sufficinet that there is a sizable pool of funds to fix houses such as this (to be recouped via tax leins). Perhaps the 99-year rent should be $8,000 — which would be reasonable given the value of the houses. If someone could not afford this — that alone would suggest financial unworthiness. Buying a house in this town means spending significant money on an ongoing basis to keep the property up. Let’s be up front about that.