So Warren's community development director thinks the rules that govern using tax money to do emergency home repairs needs to be "better defined?" While reading the story about repairs being paid for on a home that had, until a month before the city was asked for help, been owned by Bob Cregar, it sure seems like the rule is defined rather well.
The city will help with emergency home repairs so long as the owner occupant has lived in a home he or she has owned for a year prior to coming forward for aid. Odd how other areas consider such a policy a "hard and fast " rule. The rule partially is in place to prohibit a property owner from selling a house "as is," creating a situation where the new owner has to perhaps run to a city agency to fix what should have been fixed by the seller of the home. This is what happened here, where the city basically subsidized the sale of this home for Mr. Cregar by paying for thousands of dollars in repairs.
Odd how that, according to Warren's 2012 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report to HUD, only one emergency home repair was applied for in the city of Warren to the CD department. One would think that in a city full of so many low-to-moderate income citizens, many of them older folks, that there would be dozens of requests a year for emergency home repairs. Perhaps this office does a poor job of letting the citizens know of such programs? Perhaps that would entail too much paperwork for this office?
And odder still that the one emergency home repair that was done in 2012 has the whiff of rule bending about it, superseding the guidelines that govern the exact same programs in other areas. Can nothing ever be done properly within the office of Community Development? Why is administration thrilled with such poor handling of community development concerns time and time again?