Nobody was injured in what Seattle Fire called a “fully involved” house fire in the 100 block of 12th Ave E early Saturday morning just after 5 AM.
For the second time in a week, firefighters were called to fight flames inside a boarded-up home at 12th and John used by squatters and drug users to get out of the cold Seattle nights. This time, however, the entire home burned.
The structure — one of three boarded and empty of legal residents — at the corner is set to be demolished to make way for a new microhousing project. It still stands but with charred walls on both of its floors.
Wednesday morning, Station 25 firefighters were called to the same house to fight a fire in the basement. That blaze was found to be an accident, most likely caused by “improperly discarded smoking material.”
The location has generated repeated calls to police to report trespassers and people camping inside the structures. Permits for demolition have been filed but not yet issued.
UPDATE 11:45 AM: Seattle Fire remains on the scene:
Firefighters remain at a vacant home on 12th Ave E near E John fighting fire. Condition of home unsafe for entry. pic.twitter.com/JO0Y9x07ri
— Seattle Fire Dept (@SeattleFire) January 9, 2016
…”used by squatters and drug users”…I think that’s a cheap way to put it but that’s just my opinion. That old house has been a squat for a while now. I’m a neighbor and it’s had some good and bad luck. Isn’t the real culprit in all this the property owner? Serious question.
No “cheap”-ness intended. Just trying to keep it simple, straightforward. How would you describe the situation around trespassers on the properties?
Yes, it’s the property owner fault. The property owner should hire a property management team and 24hr security team. While at it, I think a landscaper would be nice too. Don’t you? …oh and an interior decorator. Serious response.
* *rolls eyes**
I thought it was going to turn into a bike store at one time. A strung out person had several random bikes, so I knew they were just trying to open a little business. LOL
Sounds like a good plan. After all, if you can’t take care of your own property you shouldn’t own any.
Honestly wonder hho the people who live down stream from that fire are going to pay for the repairs from the flooding.
Anyplace that’s been unoccupied for a while ends up like this. Even the doorway of the old Value Village is now a squat.
The comparison to San Francisco is now complete with folks stepping over homeless people on their way to and from the latest fancy restaurant.
The true sign of Seattle’s decline to the same level of shithole-ness as SF will be when the bum turds start popping up in the middle of the sidewalks.
Not too far off from there. A few weeks ago, my girlfriend witnessed someone just taking a poop in the middle of the street in front of the former Tatyana’s/Bettie Page store at high noon.
All three parcels are owned by CAPITOL HILL DEVELOPMENT LLC.
600350-0890
600350-0910
600350-0920
Capitol Hill Construction is a degenerate property owner that could give a crap less about the neighborhood. As one of several neighbors that have contacted the city about these three vacant homes, I can confirm that the owner doesn’t care. There have been crackheads and other vagrants living in those houses for months. Furthermore, the city’s DPD office has known about this and doesn’t seem to care. Hopefully it won’t take a fireman dying, a next-door structure burning down, or a passerby getting napped and raped in those houses to get Ms. Sugimura and her office to do their job.
I agree. At the very least, the property owner should be required to put up some effective fencing to keep the vagrants out, or better yet to go ahead soon with the razing of the houses.
The fault lies with the people who trespass and burn the house down. Whether they use drugs or not is not material. The owner should take minimal steps to secure the property (such as boarding up the windows) but blaming the property owner is like saying you deserved to be robbed, assaulted, or whatever because you had a nice watch on your wrist, walked in the wrong neighborhood, etc. The responsible parties were the ones in the building when they should not have been. Seems pretty simple to me.
No, Glen.
The owners bought the property in 2014, and after about 6 months of trouble on this block the city FORCES them to finally come and semi-board the place up, which takes several weeks and more complaints for them to actually complete. Then, Capital Hill Construction just abandons the property and assume all is well. All has not been well. As they darn well know, the vagrants easily get past the cheap plywood boarding job. Owners have a responsibility to inspect and follow-up on THEIR property. Cap Hill Construction is ignorant; when they finally get to tear these down and build their new building, the neighbors will be sure to be just as unhelpful to their attempts to attract tenants. Remember that, CHC.
I agree, the property owners should be held accountable. Why isn’t there a city requirement that forces the demolition of vacated property within “X” days so this kind of obvious situation doesn’t happen?
As stated in the story –
Property owner has filed all the required paperwork for demolition and is just waiting for the city to issue the permits.
They cannot knock it down without a permit. That would be a … crime.
Irrelevant. Regardless of what’s happening with the buildings, they have a duty to periodically inspect and secure them. Vagrants have been living in these three houses for a year and something this bad was only a matter of time. The owners are at fault for not securing their buildings, and the city is at fault for not enforcing the vacant property ordinances.
And the vagrants are at fault for well’ being vagrants and burning down the house. That part should be simple people. Why is it so hard to say?
I do see your point and I agree that whomever started the fire is technically at fault for what happened. But this [and many other properties] sit empty so long it invites bad things to happen, and I do have to say the methods for boarding up those houses was pretty weak. I’ve learned [from another comment] that the rules involved for tearing a property down are fairly complicated and take time. Maybe we could do something about that?
Realtor here: The city generally won’t let you demolish housing until new construction permits are approved – and that takes a long, long time. The end results of this misguided policy against vacant lots are homes like the three on this corner sitting for months on end. Why not just let the developers knock ’em down once all the tenants have gotten their relo benefits and left, rather than just sit there as an active nuisance? Better a vacant lot than a firetrap.
I’ve often wondered why these homes can’t be rented out short-term for a nominal amount, but the feasibility studies and site prep involved would be a huge violation of a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of their home.
Here’s a little more on demo requirements:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/Publications/CAM/cam337.pdf
Thank you, Jakob. I appreciate that information and it explains a lot!
Such a sad way for a home have spent its final days. If a structure is slated for demolition then the city should allow it to be put out of its misery and worry about the details of whats replacing it later.
I can’t imagine the stress and anxiety these boarded up structures place on its neighbors. And ultimately the police and fire resources to deal with the inevitable. The city needs to change its ways.
Interesting. Many writers suggest that the owners bear a responsibility to prevent irresponsible behavior by squatters and trespassers. What about the rest of us – landlords and owners if you will, of the public land that constitutes Seattle. This land is awash in illegal squatting, trespassing, littering, public defecation, narcotic sales and use. What we tolerate and fail to address on a daily basis makes the fire in this structure pale in impact. Look in the mirror before holding these owners to account. It is the rest of us who put out the welcome mat for those who caused the fire.
I’ve modified my position based on information provided by comments posted here. I now believe the problem is DPD and City of Seattle. If it makes you feel better I’m a property owner too. I’ve also lived here since the 70’s and I’m just an old lady, but I know my neighborhood and my issue is with the obvious problems that occur between when a building is slated for demolition and when that demolition actually happens and a new building goes up.
I look in the mirror at least once a day and I’m OK with what I see. If you have any solutions for the obvious homeless problem in Seattle and want to help our neighborhood I’d love to hear your ideas.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I think that very few of us have “put out the welcome mat.” Quite the contrary. The main problem is that the responsible City departments (DPD, SDOT, Human Services) which should be addressing the various dysfunctional behaviors you mention, are basically looking the other way…..and in some cases making decisions which do indeed welcome more and more homeless/addicted people to our city.