Wednesday, May 21, 2008

149 Kane Street

I've seen another couple posts on rat-squirrel house recently. The first time I saw something about this (I believe it originated on Lost City) I remembered the two Pottery Barn toy chests we bought last fall next door to the subject premises. The seller of the chests and I spoke, at length, about the situation. It's a sad situation and they are in my prayers. I distinctly remembered her mentioning that the back yard was far worse than the front; could it be true? I'd like to thank her for supplying me with all these photographs.

I threw my two, professional cents in. She (the owner of 149, who the neighbor says "comes and goes and basically uses it as storage") is the king of her castle and unless she poses a hazard to the public or adjoining structures, then she's well within her rights to let it fall into disrepair...so long as she keeps up with property taxes--something I believe she may not be doing--there's not much that can be done to remedy the situation.


A remnant from the Canarsee native Americans that once occupied this land?

I thought that was the image of a ghost in the left window but I was told that "it's a Mattress... that gets wet every time it rains. The mildew and mold in that house and what most be living in there along with the pigeons and squirrels is unthinkable... "

All that flashing could contain asbestos. Mmm...sure looks flaky but it's only dangerous if it's airborne.
That's a solid 1" crack in the brownstone step.


7 comments:

Brady Westwater said...

The backyard is a clear fire hazard for the adjoining properties - as is likely the interior. One call to the fire department on the backyards and their visual inspection of the interior once they are in the backyard should get a citation filed pronto.

Citizen Skein said...

Thanks for the comment, Brady. Lost City also believes it constitutes a public safety hazard. I have an architecture degree and have consulted in the city on all things building code and zoning for 8 years, which involves a lot of contact with the FD also. Honestly, I agree it's a hazard, but you're not going to get much going through the building code. DOH, maybe, but that's not my forte. I'll expound on this subject in a post soon, but yesterday my wife gave birth to our second girl! I have fatherly duties to tend to. Here's how it all went down: http://cheazepeaze.blogspot.com/

Citizen Skein said...

The key to my argument is that the owner is the sole occupant.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it looks too bad. It certainly doesn't pose the sort of hazard that would warrant condemnation. Clearly, Citizen Skein's comments regarding potential asbestos exposure are un-informed. You should give the poor owner a break, NIMBYs.

Citizen Skein said...

Actually, I deal a lot with asbestos investigators. A lot of flashing in old building's is ACM. What make you so certain it doesn't contain asbestos?

Anonymous said...

Because I know that asbestos in toxic aerosolized form is always white. Never char black. NIMBY.

Citizen Skein said...

I didn't say it was airborne. I said it's only dangerous if it was "aerosolized." It could definitely be asbestos. This is not the conversation I want to have.