Decatur Applies for GEMA Grant to Purchase Flooding Westchester Home
Decatur Metro | August 16, 2011At last night’s Decatur city commission meeting, four Westchester neighborhood residents stood up in support of the city applying for a grant through the hazard mitigation program of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency to purchase the home at 237 Westchester Drive.
According to the home-owner and area residents, substantial flooding of the house and lot – which has occurred seven times in eight years – occurs due the inadequacies of the city’s storm water and sewer runoff system in the area.
If approved, the grant would cover 75% of the purchase of the property, which is currently appraised by the County at $403,000. The city would cover the other 25%, in an amount not to exceed $101,000. According to Asst. City Manager David Junger, there is money in the city’s capital improvement fund to finance this project during the current fiscal year.
However, approval from GEMA will probably take an estimated 12 months.
If approved, the residence would be torn down and the lot would be converted into a public green-space. Based on discussion between the city commissioners and Mr Junger, even if the lot is purchased, there are no plans currently to remedy the drainage issue.
Latest from Decaturish
I believe this is essentially what the city did with a neighboring lot on Garden Lane. It’s only been a good thing, both as a flood overflow area, and an unofficial dog park/sports field for the street.
Is the flooding just an issue with that particular house? Looking at the Google street view of that address, it looks like a normally situated house and lot in the middle of Westchester Drive. I wonder what the homeowners on either side feel about the house next door becoming greenspace, unless this will somehow mitigate any flooding problems they have?
There was a house near Medlock Park that also suffered from repeated flooding and purchased with (I think) FEMA funds and converted to a community garden. But that lot is on the corner of the street in a very low-lying area clearly in the creek’s floodplain.
I think it’s one thing to purchase houses that were built in a subprime location years ago because it’s essentially fixing the problem (removing a house built where one really probably should not have been). But, if the house is really flooding because of a city storm and sewer drainage issue that doesn’t seem an optimal solution.
A correction to my last paragraph above: As the county provides water and sewer service, I assume it would be a county issue to repair/address stormwater runoff and sewer drainage issues.
You can see a photo of the flooding over at the Decatur Patch:
http://decatur.patch.com/articles/decatur-may-buy-flood-prone-lot#photo-7387653
It’s a mess. The home owner has spent and experienced property loss of over $300,000. The neighborhood is supportive of this approach to resolve the problem.
As I understand it, changes to the storm water drainage system to eliminate flooding at this location are cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, it’s cheaper to just buy the house and let the area function as a detention basin.
Maybe Westchester needs a catfish pond?
To be clear, I wasn’t at all suggesting that the property owner shouldn’t be relieved of this burden. It’s a horrible situation.
Why doesn’t the current resident handle the matter as a private transaction, rather than burden taxpayers with these expenses? I am sure there would be a willing buyer…fill dirt is cheap.
What private party is going to pay market price for this property?
It’s a City problem to resolve because the City is: (1) responsible for ensuring proper drainage and (2) approved the home to be built on this site ( not the current City Folks’ doing).
(Surely you also meant to express a little sympathy for the homeowner’s predicament?)
Oops. Misplaced “is.”
There’s no way you could hear the homeowner’s saga and not think this should be done. She’s been Put Through It!!! Jim Baskett remarked that you could see in the photos that the water wasn’t reaching the pipe to be diverted. David Junger said that no adjustments will be made to drainage because it falls into the 25 year flood plain expectations. The neighbors present didn’t indicate concern about that or about it remaining a vacant lot. (Their obvious care for their neighbor’s plight was very touching. I’m sure it’s been a big boost during the agonizingly long process to address this situation.)
[99% sure the $403,000 covers the buyout, tear-down, and associated costs.]
Any idea what the $ 300K property loss since taking possession covers? Loss of real property? Loss in value? If this is loss in value, perhaps a developer would pay the difference for a Lot Purchase and Sale Agreement.
The “25 year flood plain expectations” comment sounds like a game changer, though.
Good luck to them. We are currently in the midst of a FEMA buyout which has stretched on for three years. BTW, the assessment of the “fair market value” comes at the end of the process, not the beginning, so I am not sure where they got that $403,000 figure from. Our “fair market value” for a house of the same age and 200 square feet larger is going to mean a “short sale” if we decide to go through with it.
The $403,000 figure came off the tax record, if I recall that conversation from the meeting correctly.
It seems odd that this process proposes to use the tax record value for an obviously distressed, i.e, devalued, property. Like FEMA and the City should take it on the chin to satisfy the owner’s complaint. Did the owner not have a notion that the property was prone to flooding before purchase? There are legally-required disclosure requirements covering such matters in real estate transactions.
Do I understand that the Commission will petition GEMA for and use City of Decatur funds to pay up to $ 403,000 to relieve this owner’s burden?
According to realtor.com, this property, built in 1952, was sold for $ 269,900 in 2003 and appraised in 2009 for $ 115,440.
If you read the posting, COD is provide matching money of $101,000, representing 25% of the cost, with GEMA/FEMA providing the other 75%.
The current DeKalb tax appraisal for the property is $ 288,600. As Deanne noted, the amount also include the teardown, fill-in and mitigation.
If the property was not in a designated flood plain at the time it was purchased, no disclosure would have been done.
I disagree regarding disclosure. The buyer would have received a form with a check mark indicating “Basement Floods” or something to that effect during the sale process. The buyer was informed.
Really? My impression is that it’s buyer beware in this state. The seller is supposed to indicate all defects but there’s little incentive to do so. Once a deal is closed, it’s lots of time, stress, and legal $ to get redress from the seller.
Take a look at Section 6. Drainage, Flooding and Moisture in Georgia Association of Realtors’ Seller’s Property Disclosure Statement, available online…
That may not have been in effect at the time – disclosure requirements became much more comprehensive a while back. It depends on when the property was last sold. And, as has been pointed out, development in the interim may have had an effect. What was true then may not be true now.
I’m glad they will get relief. I’d hate to have to move because of flooding, but I can understand their plight. Only too well:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13937833@N05/4331845361/in/photostream/
Oh, man. I recall the city doing a bunch of sewer work down there for a while. Did it help?
It has helped, we hope, but there has been a spate of new construction in the drainage area, so we might not be out of the woods.