What might normally have been a routine item, briefly disposed of by
the Shelby County Commission, has become a cause célèbre
there. This is a resolution to grant property rights over 140
inner-city lots to veteran builder Harold
Buehler who would go on to construct houses on the lots under the
Tennessee Homestead Act. Federal stimulus funds are also involved in
the proposed transaction, which has become controversial on two
grounds: Buehler owes something like $1 million in back property taxes
on previously acquired properties; and he has critics who allege that
he is a de facto slumlord.
This last charge was articulated at Monday’s regular county
commission meeting by Commissioner Henri Brooks in the latest of
several stormy debates on the matter. Brooks and other critics,
including representatives of some, but not all, locally functioning
community-development organizations, accuse Buehler, who has built
hundreds of houses on vacant inner-city lots over the years, of
constructing substandard dwellings inconsistent with ideal long-term
neighborhood patterns and of renting the houses out rather than putting
them up for sale.
Brooks escalated the rhetoric on Monday by referring to
Buehler-built houses as “death traps,” which, she charged, don’t meet
relevant fire-safety codes, and she was able to stall action on the
resolution by noting, correctly, that the properties had not been
publicly advertised as available under terms of the Homestead Act that,
up until now, had apparently not been noticed by county officials, much
less enforced.
Buehler’s supporters, who so far have constituted a majority on the
commission, point out that the proliferation of vacant or foreclosed or
dilapidated properties in Memphis — now numbering in the
thousands — cries out for development, and they note that Buehler
over the years has been almost unique among builders in doing
significant “in-fill” development to reduce the scale of the
blight.
Residents of the affected neighborhoods have testified before the
commission in both directions. Some agree with Brooks, Commissioner
Mike Ritz, and other critics that Buehler’s rental properties run
counter to neighborhood needs, both aesthetically and in regard to the
goal of creating new homeowners. Others contend that they either prefer
to rent or won’t be able to qualify for home ownership for years to
come and see renting with Buehler to be the best solution
available.
To counter his critics, Buehler has pointed out that he has revamped
his home models and done so in consultation with people in the
neighborhoods, that he has embarked on a catch-up schedule to pay his
delinquent taxes, and that residents of his rental properties have an
opportunity to buy them after a period of 15 years.
We see logic on both sides of the dispute. But we, like a majority
of the county commission, if previous votes in committee are a reliable
guide, lean toward favoring the resolution. The bottom line is that
Buehler has built — and massively — where others have not,
that he has responded not only to a large environmental and human need
but has been willing to accommodate legitimate criticism. And, if not
him, who will see to the need for large-scale in-fill? So far, the
answer has been nobody.
