I don't get why the city allows abandoned buildings to just sit, boarded up. The Arcade is an excellent example. While people (idiots) thought that tearing that building down would be a good idea, why did the city allow it to sit with broken windows in the heart of downtown for twenty plus years? Would that be allowed in Clayton? I walked through the Arcade last week, it is probably the coolest building downtown. The two story arcade itself looks like something out of Chicago or New York. Cathedral ceilings, etc. Construction is starting very soon, if it hasn't already. Back to the buildings issue, in Soulard there are a few houses with boards on the windows. Who owns these? The owners shouldn't be allowed to have buildings sit in such a state. Again, would this be allowed in Clayton, Ladue?

Since Slay has been in office, they've made a concerned effort to go after absentee landlords. Forcing the owners of buildings to do something with their property rather than just let it sit and rot.



But it's also up to local ordinances to force the issue as well.

I went on a tour of the property.

I'm surprised that there are still a few boarded up buildings in Soulard - I see a couple of them on my way to work every morning. If you're not going to do something with your building, sell it to someone who will.

I've filed regular complaints about an abandoned building owned by Jordan Properties that is two doors up from me in Soulard. This has gone on for nearly 4 years!



Following the most recent complaint, I was told that the building is now in court.



Plain and simple, the city allows this to go on if the building is owned by someone who is well-connected. The same is true with code enforcement. Many owners have the resources to comply with codes but they are permitted to ignore them.



The sad part is that it brings down property values and does severe damage to the image of the city.



It really doesn't matter how much RCGA or any other group spends on economic development and housing (RHCDA) if strict code enforcement doesn't come first.

well, who are the people that own these? I think we should post their names in here. Who owns the Metropolitan building on Grand? their name should be posted; it's ridiculous. There's one down the street from me in Soulard that just sits boarded up. I wonder who owns these? Would they allow buildings to be boarded up in their neighborhoods, which are probably somewhere in the county?

JCity wrote:well, who are the people that own these? I think we should post their names in here. Who owns the Metropolitan building on Grand? their name should be posted; it's ridiculous. There's one down the street from me in Soulard that just sits boarded up. I wonder who owns these? Would they allow buildings to be boarded up in their neighborhoods, which are probably somewhere in the county?

post the addresses- I bet someone could get it

The Metropolitan Building is easy, it's Grand Center Inc. Luckilly, there is actually plans for that. If it happens is another question.



You can lookup any property in the city here

This is a good thread. Deadbeat property owners should be dealt with like any other common criminal. I believe they cause a lot of the problems by not properly securing buildings or letting them waste away. The LRA can be just as guilty sometimes as well.



I just complained about a vacant building in my nabe that wasn't boarded up by using the citizens service bureau. I kind of forgot about it, but I've gotten stoplights fixed and stop signs replaced using it.



Here's a Link, hope it helps.

>>Citizens' Service Bureau

Actually, I heard that The metropolitan is technically not "OWNED" by Grand Center Inc, but a private owner. The building also is not a part of Grand Center, the boundary is drawn around it. how interesting..

JCity, it is true that the building is not owned by Grand Center. It is on like a 99 year lease or something. However, the building is within the TIF boundries and TIF moneys will be used to develope the building.