By the end of the year, Toledo police hope to increase parking tickets issued by 20 percent, complete a security assessment of all the city's public and parochial schools, and be able to scan license plates automatically with at least one of their patrol cars.
Those goals and others outlined by leaders of each city department were announced during a meeting last week at the Sanger Branch of the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library.
Superintendent John Foley said the district has reapplied for a federal grant that, if awarded, would provide $450,000 to $500,000 to the district to help cover costs of implementing new security measures and improve communication systems.
The Toledo Fire Department also is awaiting approval of a federal grant to begin replacing all of its automatic external defibrillators, which are stored in the stations, fire trucks, engines, and basic life support and transport vehicles.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080421/NEWS03/80...
It's good to know the scourge of illegal parking will be handled in the coming year. I've been caught once or twice myself and paid a terrible price in the shame I bear. The citizens over on Ontario and Galena will be pleased I'm sure that Chief Navarre has decided to focus on this rampant crime problem instead of the gang problem they deal with.
Here's to the crazy ones, the rebels, the troublemakers, the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them.
"The Department of Neighborhoods reported it has demolished 34 nuisance structures toward its goal of razing 300 by Dec. 31."
Tearing them down and what to do with lots that are not buildable, because of the size of the lot and todays standards.
The administration does not speak about this.
What do you mean "not buildable" due to the size of the lot and today's standards? A house was there to begin with, so another house of the same size or smaller should be constructable.
What I was getting at, is that the standards and zoning requirements when a house was built, let's say in the 30's, is different than the zoning requirements now.
Some of the lots do not look big enough to build a house on them.
I've never heard of building codes or whatever that denied building "small" houses (750 sq ft or less). You may be thinking unconsciously of the American trend of building larger and larger houses just because banks were covering those bloated mortgages. And if the lot is "small", then that's what a 2nd story is for.
So, basically speaking, if a house sat on the lot before, then another house can be built on that same lot. Mr. 3000-sq-ft American may not WANT that lot since his McMansion is impossible to put on that lot, but that doesn't mean it's unbuildable.
The zoning/fire law is such that every structure must be at least 20 feet from another. A huge number of homes were built in this city prior to that law and that's obvious in the older neighborhoods where some houses almost touch roof lines.
Most all of the razed houses are on lots that are 40' width or less. So, in most cases, you cannot rebuild a house or anything else on that lot and maintain the 20' distance from houses on either side.
When I lived in the Old South End, my detached garage was only 2 feet from my house. It needed to be torn down and replaced but I was informed that if I tore it down, I could not rebuild it. Reasons, it was only 3 feet from the neighbor's garage, 2 feet from my house and 1 foot off the alley.
However, there was a glitch in that law that allowed that if 1 wall of the original garage remained up/standing, you could rebuild 3 of them. I'm not sure if this would be applicable to a house or not, but one could try it and find out. Chances are no.
I see it as a reasonable law really. Fire is a quick moving seriously damaging event and when houses are too close together, it's a domino effect. To my mind, it speaks to safety and you have to include that with current and future building plans.
Not at all.
I am looking at the lots and as Quigley pointed out there are restrictions and some lots are small by today's standards, and some lots may not be buildable.
There is no going to to the extreme and envisioning 3,000 sq. ft. homes in the North End neighborhoods.
But there are empty city owned lots that are not producing anything for the city, yet, and in the mean time, the city has not laid out plans for the vacant lots that are created by the demolition.
What Chad said seems plausible, hence I am wrong. Therefore, those empty lots do indeed create a big problem about what to do with them. A 20ft spacing requirement would make much of the neighborhoods I know impossible since the lots are side-by-side rectangles. In larger cases, the houses would have to be thin and long like the lots.
I've heard of the 1-wall issue being used in California to get around such restrictions. A scumbag flipper would buy up a modest house, demo the entire thing except for 1 wall, and then build a massive McMansion that fills the lot.
The zoning regs are here: http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll?f=id$id=Toledo%20Municipal%20Code%3Ar%3A7724$t=document-frame.htm$3.0$p=
The money grab..... 2008 edition
to drive away tourist from our area. Stop for a visit and get a twenty dollar fine for over parking. Great idea. They have the same idea in Oak Park, Illinois and only residents visit the the stores. I can understand Oak Park's fines. Their city is populated by high income families and they want to reserve the limited parking to the residents. But Toledo doesn't have that kind of wonderful problem.