|
Post by dumdave on Apr 11, 2015 9:59:44 GMT -6
I was talking to my new neighbor. He said that his landlord told him that this house had to be rented because the City of Streator was going to start charging the owner for a vacant house. Is this true?
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Apr 11, 2015 11:53:09 GMT -6
Is that bad? Arent people complaining about vacant houses being an issue? Dont we want attempts made to fill them?
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Apr 11, 2015 11:55:06 GMT -6
It sounds like he had no problem getting it rented, if you already have a new neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Apr 11, 2015 12:07:30 GMT -6
Good law. Keeps the bad element away. We don't need crack house's, squatters, arsonists, drug dealings, or any other type of criminal elements here.
|
|
|
Post by iluvstreator on Apr 11, 2015 12:20:34 GMT -6
That's a new one for me. I own some rental homes and keep up with city ordinances. I doubt there is any truth to it. I DO KNOW that homeowner's insurance on a vacant rental is very, very high compared to one that is occupied. Mine are always rented unless being renovated for a short while.
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Apr 11, 2015 13:11:53 GMT -6
What insurance company covers vacant property? I talked to a few insurance companies and they all said to me that They don't cover any home that is vacant. Mainly due to being targets of arson.
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Apr 11, 2015 14:04:19 GMT -6
what insurance company did you talk to? plenty of insurance companies cover vacant properties.
|
|
|
Post by rocket on Apr 11, 2015 14:39:06 GMT -6
The ones in town. And also talked to them about if your home is a total loss,that insurance companies require you to rebuild on the same property, otherwise They won't pay out to build a new house if you plan to relocate. Apparently it is insurance fraud if the home owner doesn't Use the money to build on the same property. there seems to been quite a few home owners after the tornado That took the insurance money and relocated somewhere else
|
|
|
Post by toshiko on Apr 11, 2015 16:53:12 GMT -6
They will pay, if you do not rebuild. Just not the total amount!
|
|
|
Post by dog on Apr 11, 2015 17:11:37 GMT -6
I think if they pay the vacant house fee, they aren't charged monthly for sewer as long as it is vacant.
|
|
|
Post by no1inparticular on Apr 11, 2015 18:36:14 GMT -6
And this is why I get all of my insurance out of town...When I found out they were charging my significant other double of what he is now paying, I pretty much figured that my money is best spent elsewhere...My coverage is better, and the costs are lower...
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Apr 11, 2015 21:35:50 GMT -6
I was talking to my new neighbor. He said that his landlord told him that this house had to be rented because the City of Streator was going to start charging the owner for a vacant house. Is this true? Don't you remember me talking about their ridiculous vacant building ordinance that they were pushing on others but wouldn't even follow for their own buildings? If you go to the City's website and find the vacant building registration form, you can read about the $200.00 annual fee and the $500.00 inspection fee, as well as the $750.00 day (with each day being a separate occurrence) fines for not correcting any code violations they find or for not submitting a plan that is acceptable to them. You can also read about the loose set of criteria that one person uses to decide whose buildings should be considered vacant. Don't you remember me complaining a lot about that ridiculous ordinance being unfair and hurting real estate values here? It seems that someone at City Hall must have become convinced that it indeed was unfair and ordinance 15.24.030 was repealed. They seem to have a hard time updating their website though. I hope that the repealed ridiculous ordinance still being posted doesn't continue to discourage too many people from investing in our community.
|
|
|
Post by dumdave on Apr 12, 2015 10:24:25 GMT -6
It sounds like he had no problem getting it rented, if you already have a new neighbor. It's been vacant for 7 years.
|
|
|
Post by iluvstreator on Apr 12, 2015 12:01:45 GMT -6
The ones in town. And also talked to them about if your home is a total loss,that insurance companies require you to rebuild on the same property, otherwise They won't pay out to build a new house if you plan to relocate. Apparently it is insurance fraud if the home owner doesn't Use the money to build on the same property. there seems to been quite a few home owners after the tornado That took the insurance money and relocated somewhere else My insurance is in town and they will insure if vacant only the fee is much higher due to vandalism and such. As far as taking the money and running if your house is a total loss goes, anyone can take the money and NOT rebuild but they are only given "fair market value" for the home. For example, if our personal home burned down, we could get $285,000 to rebuild but only $165,000 in cash. That was a year ago and the value may have fallen because of the economy and the lack of sales in our town. A lot of people took the money instead of rebuilding, too, because their home was under insured and they weren't getting enough money to rebuild. I felt so badly for those people because they loved their home and their neighborhood but didn't have enough money saved to rebuild. If you plan on staying in your home for a long time, you should make sure that you have enough insurance on it to cover a rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Apr 12, 2015 13:57:31 GMT -6
It sounds like he had no problem getting it rented, if you already have a new neighbor. It's been vacant for 7 years. Its been vacant for 7 years, but able to be rented when they thought there might be a fine? Sounds like the ordinence worked in lighting a fire after 7 years.
|
|