This apparently sound house is on the city's list of 1,700 properties to be razed with FEMA funds. Is the city's process "broken?" (SquanderedHeritage.com)

A storm is brewing in New Orleans, and it has nothing—and everything—to do with wind and water. Community organizations, homeowners, and at least one member of the City Council say the city is using federal funding to sweep away historic, flooded, but repairable housing as ruthlessly as did Katrina. Yet city representatives assert they're simply trying to facilitate the recovery and protect the health and safety of residents.

These old homes stood up to the wrath of the hurricane, and now the city is trying to take them down," says Karen Gadbois, founder of Squandered Heritage, a Web site that tracks the loss of historic properties to demolition. "Many of the properties on the list do appear extremely damaged, but others have people living in them, and many are in the process of being remediated or renovated. There are homeowners who are desperately trying to have their properties removed from the list."

City Councilperson Stacy Head, whose district includes the recently demolished Gallo Theater and some Katrina-flooded areas, says the entire demolition process is "incredibly broken." Says Head, "Houses that should be demolished and are unquestionably an imminent danger �c are not being torn down. Yet other houses that certainly can be restored, that are part of this city's fabric and its economic value, are on the list for demolition."

Some owners leave notes to fend off city-initiated demolitions. (SquanderedHeritage.com)

Head says: "I have been told how a process works, and then as we audit it, and we find it does not work as it is supposed to. [We] have people protecting valuable property by standing between a bulldozer and their house and saying, 'You are not going to tear down my home.' I say, let's pick the low-hanging fruit, the obvious problems, and then let's back up and make sure the process is more thoughtful before we consider the ones that are more controversial."

Imminent Danger

The trouble started with City Ordinance 22499 M.C.S, which the New Orleans City Council passed on February 1, 2007. It gives the city authorization to demolish or remediate property deemed an imminent health threat 30 business days after notifying the owner regarding its intent.

Many homeowners and neighborhood activists say they applauded the ordinance initially, since the city had made little progress demolishing some severely damaged homes. Jennifer Weishaupt, vice president of the Mid-City Neighborhood Organization (MCNO), an advocacy group for a flooded but rapidly rebounding neighborhood near downtown, says she has worked since March to have the city demolish 14 extremely damaged and dangerous properties in MCNO's area. As of late July, Weishaupt reports, only three had been demolished, and others were still awaiting various reviews.

Yet residents charge that under its new ordinance. the city is now citing numerous properties that have no business being there. Furthermore, some say they have received no written or posted notice from the city of its intent to raze their houses. "We've been amazed at the numbers of property owners we're hearing from that heard their homes were on the list secondhand—from neighbors or neighborhood activists, in many cases," says Walter Gallas, director of field operations in New Orleans for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. "We're appalled at how poorly the system is working. It is full of errors."

According to David Robinson-Morris, senior publicist with the New Orleans' Mayor's Office of Communication, the city uses three different methods—publication in the paper, written letters, and notices posted on homes—to ensure homeowners are properly informed. He asserts the city mails letters to all property owners, but says the city cannot be held responsible if the owner does not receive them.

Robinson-Morris also says that for the past year, the city has had programs in place to encourage and help owners to remediate their homes. "Our goal was never to tear down people's houses," Robinson-Morris says. "Every home that is declared an imminent health threat goes through historic review processes as a safeguard before demolition."

Another well-tended candidate for demolition on the city's list (SquanderedHeritage.com)

Safe at Home?

H.J. Bosworth, Jr., a structural engineer by profession, was surprised to find his home at 3731 Napoleon Avenue on the city's demolition list, especially since the city had issued him a building permit for renovations on May 31, 2007, (the same day as one of the legal notices) and sent no written notice. Bosworth says he has since received e-mail assurances from Winston Reid, New Orleans' director of code enforcement, that the home is off the list. However, he's now concerned because pre-demolition workers subsequently came to his home to take measurements and conduct other procedures required for the demolition of historic structures.

Homeowner Craig Szakaly found out from a neighbor that his home is on the list for demolition and says he has also not received any written notification. Szakaly has yet to start the formal process of requesting removal, but according to the city ordinance, he has little choice but to gut and secure the home. According to a fact sheet about the ordinance on the city's Web site, "Unremediated damages 20 months after the hurricane will compromise the structural integrity of a building �c to rectify the condemnation, [homeowners] must gut and secure their properties."

Szakaly admits he has not gutted his home but says it barely flooded and gutting is not necessary. "I had a contractor check the home after Katrina, and the Small Business Administration evaluated it and found it structurally sound when I applied for an assistance loan," Szakaly says.

Robinson-Morris says, "We have a program by which homes can be removed from the condemnation list. However, once a city inspector visits a property and determines it is in violation, the onus is on the homeowner to prove the property should not be demolished."

Must every house on the list be gutted, as the city's fact sheet insists? No, but the owner may have to face some red tape. "If a home does not need to be gutted, the homeowner can submit documentation that we will take into consideration," Robinson-Morris says. "However, it will still be subject to further city inspection."

Five houses in this row of National Register-nominated "sister properties" are on the latest demolition candidate list, despite the fact the owner has begun restoring some of them. (SquanderedHeritage.com)

But restoration specialists argue that the city's process is too rigid. "These historic homes were constructed originally of flood-resistant materials with the knowledge that they might flood," says Rudy Christian, Project Development Manager for the Preservation Trades Network, an organization for professionals in traditional building trades. "The fact that current economic and political factors have caused homes to sit for 20 months with no work does not necessarily make them unsound, unsafe, or uninhabitable."

In fact, Christian asserts, "Homeowners who rushed to gut their homes, removing original plaster and cypress wood, have removed flood-resistant materials that they cannot now replace. Homes untouched are often in better shape, structurally, than those that were unsympathetically gutted."

Gallas agrees. "We're amazed at the condition of many of the homes for which the city considers demolition to be the only option. Many of these homes only need restoration and care. And we're extremely distressed that local officials are considering such a wholesale wiping out of so much repairable historic housing stock, particularly when the city so badly needs affordable housing."

What's Gone Is Gone

Preservationists assert the city's demolition process is leaky and that the torrent of damage is now reaching flood stage. Gadbois has posted examples on her site that she says defy explanation. She points to the voluntary demolition earlier this year by Touro Infirmary of two historic structures in Uptown (a multi-family Arts and Crafts dwelling with intricate detailing and an ornately decorated Victorian single-family home). According to Gadbois, neither building should have met the criteria for demolition, yet both are now reduced to empty lots.

Lost: Preservationists had big plans to restore the 1947 Gallo Theater. (SquanderedHeritage.com)

In another example that Preservation Resource Center Director Patty Gay calls "a tragic mistake," the city authorized demolition of the Gallo Theater, a National Register-listed African American landmark built in 1947. Some thought the substantially altered, fire-damaged concrete block structure was past the point of repair. However, it had already qualified for Broadway South, a new tax incentive program designed to bring more live musical and theatrical performances to the state. "It was an important building to restore," says New Orleans preservationist Ann Woodruff, "because the hope of the city lies in saving every cultural landmark we have."

Weishaupt suggests that organizing the process might also help. "If they would group the demolitions, adjudications, and imminent threat lists and have meetings by neighborhood, this would give residents and community groups the opportunity to participate in the process and assure that the dangerous properties are being demolished and to seek alternatives to demolition when possible."

Consipiracy Theory?

Robinson-Morris asserts that the city's only intent is to improve safety and health; homeowners and neighborhood activists assume the flurry of activity is a rush by the city to meet the Aug. 29 deadline for FEMA-funded demolitions. However, some are starting to suggest that the city wants to cash in on empty lots. "My home is in an area that would be very attractive to developers," says Szakaly. "They've been eying it for years. It's near Bayou St. John (a popular waterway lined with expensive homes) and you could have tremendous views of downtown if you built condos here."

Experts insist many of these houses are sound, and Robinson-Morris was vague when asked which historic-building experts the city consulted in developing its criteria. (According to Robinson-Morris, the city council drafted the ordinance with input from internal departments such as Safety and Permits and Code Enforcement.)

But there is no need for the city to rush to the Aug. 29 deadline, since it is only for demolitions performed under the auspices of the Army Corp of Engineers. FEMA Debris and Demolition Group Leader Daniel Jackson confirms that the agency will continue to fund demolitions for the foreseeable future, funneling money to the city directly for that purpose.

Consequently, Gallas says he's not ruling anything out. "The city's action does have the appearance of a land grab. The city is targeting entire rows of homes that need remediation, not demolition. When you look at the pattern, you start to wonder, �eWhat is going on here?'"

A cry for help (SquanderedHeritage.com)

"A Bureacratic Train Wreck"

New Orleans attorney Miles Trapolin says that even if there is no illicit intent by the city or its representatives, the current system may be "an unconstitutional taking of property without due process." Although Gay says the PRC has begun sending notification postcards to homeowners and is working with the city to simplify the process of being removed from the demolition list, Trapolin is recommending owners of targeted properties file injunctions to stop what he calls "an impending bureaucratic train wreck."

"Imagine if you �c are waiting to get your money, and the city demolishes your property in the interim," Trapolin says. "You can sue, and maybe you can recover damages eventually, but all you have in the meantime is an empty lot.

"These houses are the fabric of New Orleans," he continues. "Like any fabric, if you have holes in it, you can repair it, but at a certain point, the holes become too big and the fabric is destroyed. People who came back early, and worked hard, and have maintained their property will be the ones ultimately penalized, because not only will they will no longer have a neighborhood, they won't even have a chance at one."

Jennifer Farwell is an exiled New Orleanian living in Georgia.

Sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter >>

Recent Stories