Rumors & Trending Topics

truth or myth
Rumors and unconfirmed claims can spread quickly. In an effort to keep our citizens informed and to explain any misinformation, the City of Fairborn has created this Rumors & Trending Topics page.The page will provide the City with an opportunity to clarify any rumors that may be circulating in the community. Please check back often as new facts and updates will be added on a regular basis. 
line
Property Maintenance on Demolition Sites
July 10, 2017

Question: Why doesn't the City maintain a property that they demo?

Answer: The quick response is that the City typically does not own the property that has a structure being demoed. While the city gains the legal right to remove a structure, the property or parcel that a structure sits on is owned by another party. The responsibility of maintenance of a property remains with the owner of record.

The power to demolish a structurally unsound or unsanitary building comes from the ORC Section 715.26 (Power to regulate building sanitation), Section 715.44 (Power to abate nuisances), and Chapter 3767 - Nuisances. Most structures are demolished to protect the health and welfare of the community; it is a matter of public safety.

Per the codified ordinances of the City of Fairborn, once the nuisance abatement/condemnation process begins, the property owner of record is sent notification of their right to appeal and to submit an action plan to bring a structure up to code. Once 45 days have passed, and no plan has been submitted, a notice of entry is then sent to the property owner stating that asbestos testing will be performed on the structure. When the asbestos testing is complete, the demolition bid process begins followed by the demo and then the property owner is invoiced for the cost of the demolition. After the structure(s) have been removed, the property owner is still responsible for the maintenance of the property (mowing, weed removal, etc…).
line
Update on K-Mart Property
June 30, 2017

Question: What is going on over at the K-Mart lot; is a new business going in there soon?

Answer: There is no imminent tenant for this site. The property owner is trying to bring the property up to code standards. As part of Chapter 1158 of the Zoning Code, the City began the nuisance abatement process with the Greene County Combined Health District and the Fairborn Fire Department. Both concurred that the property was a nuisance and had a blighting influence in the neighborhood. This began the dialogue between the City of Fairborn and the property owner to fix up the building to make it more marketable. The property owner has begun to make repairs to the exterior of the building such as fixing the parking lot, resealing, painting the building, securing all doors, and replacing any rotting wood facade. 

There is still currently no plan for this property and no low-to-moderate housing is planned for this area. By having a better exterior appearance, it can be more marketable for other businesses to consider.
line
Tearing Down Buildings
April 12, 2017

Question: Why does the City purchase commercial buildings to tear them down without having the property already repurposed?

Answer: The private sector does not tend to purchase, demolish, and make shovel-ready sites for their own new construction. To spur development, the City has taken the initiative to purchase blighted structures and demolish them in order to have land ready for development. New business developers are seeking out these shovel-ready sites, particularly in an urban setting. It is a goal of the City to bring in active businesses that will provide jobs for Fairborn residents.
line
Old K-Mart Property
March 29, 2017

Rumor: "The old K-Mart has been condemned and will be demolished because there is a plan for more low income housing to go in its place."

Fact: This is untrue. The former K-Mart and Kroger shopping center has not an active permanent tenant for nine months. Chapter 1158 of the Fairborn Zoning Code states that if a commercial property has been vacant of any tenant for more than six months and that property turns into a blighting, negative effect in the community; the City can deem the property a nuisance and require the property owner to put the building back into operation with a tenant, or submit their own demolition plan to remove the blighting property from the City. This action has nothing to do with how the property might be redeveloped.

The City has had no discussions for any redevelopment of this site commercial or residential. No applications have been received for a modification to the approved zoning for the property, which would be required for any reuse of the property. There is no truth to any rumor about low-to-moderate income apartments being built at that site.  
line