Condemned property... would anyone ever consider

[Account Closed]

so... 2 properties come up (in the path of progress) with the following history: would any investor ever consider getting involved?

From NYS Supreme Court

In February 2010, applications were filed with respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Albany (hereinafter ZBA) alleging that each of the subject properties was a general nuisance within the meaning of Albany City Code § 375-91 and seeking to terminate each property's nonconforming use status. Following public hearings, at which numerous neighboring property owners appeared and voiced their support for the applications,the ZBA separately determined that each of the properties owned by petitioner indeed constituted a general nuisance. As a result, petitioner was given six months to amortize his investments therein and 60 days within which to challenge the reasonableness of that amortization period.

We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record before us contains ample evidence to support the ZBA's finding that the properties at issue constitute a general nuisance within the meaning of Albany City Code § 375-91. In this regard, the reports and data either originating from or compiled by the Albany Police Department demonstrate that, between 2004 and 2009, petitioner's properties received a disproportionately high number of calls for service compared to similarly situated properties and, further, a substantial percentage of those calls were for what the police denominated as "nuisance calls," i.e., calls involving complaints of fireworks, domestic incidents, "groups annoying," loud music, animal control issues and neighbor disputes. Also included in this category were "certain types of calls or crimes that repeatedly require[d] police response," such as those involving weapons, drug sales, assaults and other criminal activities. Although petitioner attempts to downplay the significance of those calls – contending, among other things,that the statistical data is of limited value without knowing,for example, the circumstances under which the calls at issue were made – the number and, more significantly, the types of calls for service received, coupled with the 70 arrests made at [subject property 1] between 2004 and 2010 and the 65 arrests made at [subject property 2] during that same period, speak volumes about the impact that petitioner's properties have upon the surrounding neighborhood – specifically, upon "uses or structures [located] within 200 feet [there]of" (Albany City Code § 375-91).