I agree Paul, the price is way too high but the cost of blight is even higher. It is widely accepted that a vacant building like this costs the neighbors next to it over 7k in property value. Neighbors further away are less damaged by it, but damaged they are. In fact we are all damaged by blight because it brings the entire City down. Now how much is it worth? I believe and continue to maintain it must go; we just need better laws that prevent blight from taking down the City. I definitely agree with you on that point.

I am confused here, which is why I am submitting this. 1923 Senter Road is appraised at just $60,000.00 but you wanted the City to pay Mr. Kim $225,000.00, which is nearly four times its actual property value and yet Mr. Kim retains ownership of it? Why do you want the City to spend that amount of money, which is really our money since it comes from taxpayers, just so the City can demolish the building on it? That building is better in appearance, and it is fenced in, compared to the building at 1203 West Pioneer Drive. That property is only valued at $62,320.00. So, should the City pay nearly four times the value of that property just to get rid of an even more unsightly building there? The City owns in excess of 350 properties in Irving, in its own name mind you, which does not include the more than 70 properties owned by the Heritage District LLC with the backing of the City. Therefore, none of the 350 plus properties owned by the City generates any tax revenue, where at least Mr. Kimâs property at 1923 Senter Road generates a little over $1,500.00 in property taxes annually. There must be more than a $1,000,000.00 lost in property taxes annually because the City owns properties it should not and how much has that lost revenue cost us in the long run? At some point, the City will find itself owning too many properties that it cannot sell and the residents of Irving will end up the losers. We need to change the mindset regarding what the City is to do, and how it is to handle, the properties in Irving that are eyesores. As long as 1923 Senter Road is in compliance, as far as all City codes, let it be or have the City Council change the codes if something is to be done with that property in order to change its appearance. As it is now, there are far too many properties here in Irving, and currently in use, that have multiple violations in plain view that the City does little about. Maybe, we need Property Code Officers and the Code Enforcement Department to do its job correctly. At the same time, how many Property Code Officers could the City have hired for just one year, in order to work hard that one year to seriously eliminate code violations at properties, with what the City could end up overpaying Mr. Kim for just to demolish an unused building at 1923 Senter Road?

May 28,2009 could be a red letter day for The Nimitz family of students, parents, teachers, staff and neighbors of 1923 Senter. This issue is on the City Council agenda and the council could vote away this blight. Come on 9/0 vote!

For the moment, the natural gas price drop makes drilling on Irving's Barnett shale gas field uneconomic. This may provide some relief from pressure on South Irving property owners to sell-out. Remember, 1923 Senter rd abuts the city's gas lease under Nimitz High school. Just follow the money.

This former place of business has been closed for years. It is in compliance with all Irving city codes. I present this as a good example of what is wrong with a city that won't do more to see that blight like this does not damage the property values and the aesthetics of a fragile neighborhood around a world class High School.

The plat of the permitted gas well next to Mr. Kim's property is at: http://webapps.rrc.state.tx.us/dpimages/img/400000-499999//PR0000464654_0001.tif . Note that the well is being drilled right next to some houses that are included in the lease. The 300-foot setback only counts if the property is not leased. There is only one well so far, but due to the scarcity of drill sites, typically 10-12 horizontal wells will be drilled from one site. Again, the proximity of Mr. Kim's property (at Senter road and Oakdale) to the only well so far permitted in the residential area of Irving makes me go hmmm.....

Sure there are two sides to this story: 1. Irving tried to force Mr. Kim to tear down his property for free and/or sell it to another party. 2. He balked and took them to court. The Federal magistrate took one look at the city's case and ordered them to settle. BTW, people pay me large amounts of money to do forensic investigations. I know how this works. 3. Still hoping to force a sale, the city tried to renig on the deal. So it gets revealed to the whole world how weak the city's position in general is. 4. In Irving, the set-back for a drill site is 300 feet, unless you can get your neighbors to agree or you buy up the surrounding property, if you get my drift. As a practical matter, the only place you can get a site in Irving per se is to tear down an apartment unit. Which is just what the city has been doing. 5. You confuse a lease for a drill site. Say 10 wells, each producing $1 million a year in gas. Of which the drill site owner gets 2.5%= $250,000 per year. 6. Hint-- the last thing the city wants is for any of these cases to go to trial. Or for any city employees to have to sit for a deposition, under oath. 7. Well-sites and pipline access are what limit drilling in the metroplex. Go to the rail-road comissions map site (http://gis2.rrc.state.tx.us/public/ ), download the map of wells and pipelines in irving. Notice that three of the apartment units the city has gone after are straddle pipeline right of way. There is also a cluster of such apratments close to or straddling the Main DDJET right-of way south of the stadium. Funny thing, how Mr. Kim's property is only a couple hundred yards from the first well to be permitted in Irving per se.

Thanks for the link to Mr. K's argument. I am sure the City has a reply as there are always two sides to a story. I hope both parties can come to an agreement ASAP, and perhaps even before the Fall semester at Nimitz. Regarding the well: Mr. K's lot doesn't have the setback requirement for a gas well in Irving, Texas. Perhaps he could get a token amount for allowing the drill underneath his property but I understand these leases only amount to 1K per year or so .. way less than a million. So, let Mr. K dream on and in the meantime he would stand a better chance of winning the LOTTO. I do wish all parties the best.

More: The railroad commission just permitted a gas well right next to Mr. Kim's property on Bolton. According to the plat, the first horizontal well goes underneath Nimitz. Depending on what they find, as many as a dozen or so wells may be drilled from the same site, each potentially going 2500 feet or more. Mr. Kim's property was an alternative, if they had been able to shake it loose from him. A single well produces about $1 million a year in gas. The drill site owner gets 2.5% of this or $25K. Multiply this times (say) 10 wells =$250K/year. Times (say) 30 years, you are talking $7.5 million.

Er, Mr. Kim gets to keep his property. The $225K was just for the city to tear down the building and rezone the land residential. A court filing detailing this is posted at: http://www.centpharm.com/irving/tlb/plaintiff_response.pdf

Don't make me laugh, again. First Mr. K wants $225K and now it's worth millions? I don't believe there is a conspiracy. Mayor Gears promised me three years ago that he would look into this site and do what he could to help. I am holding him to his word. Citizens and the City will work together to make life better in South Irving and together they will be able to stop the SIN (South Irving Neglect).

First, the city cannot force Mr. Kim to sell his property. There must be a "meetig of the minds" deal. The city may now disagree with the $225K price, but, as Mr. Kim's attorney points out, they agreed to it and Mr. Kim only accepted it reluctantly. In fact, in trying to withdraw from the deal, the city claims Mr. Kim himself tried to withdraw first. Similarly, the Railroad commission website now shows a gas well being drilled just up Oakdals from 1923 Senter. It was most likely this, not aesthetic considerations, that caused the city to move in the first place. A Barnett Shale drill site can produce several million dollars in royalties to its owner over the life of the wells.

Don't make me laugh. I don't need to speak to anyone about this, it's obvious, it's all about the $225,000.00 !! This is not a reasonable price for a property that is appraised at $60,000.00 ... that is the dollars and cents of it. I am sure the Court can't require anyone to pay 4X+ the value of something and expect anyone to take them seriously. Unless, perhaps Dallas County Appraisal District re-valued it's worth to be $225,000.00 and not the $60,000.00 that appears on the books today.

Mr. Kim did agree to allow the city to tear down this building, at it's own expense and for a payment to him of $225,000. The city then renigged on the deal. The court records also indicate that Mr. Kim felt he could put a business at this location and would prefer to do this, rather than tear it down. But the city would no allow this to happen. So, if you have a complaint about this building still standing, take it up with the city. Tell ya what, go to the next city council meeting and ask them why they renigged on the deal.

Often the City acts late and often they make blunders but they do try and they do listen to citizens. I suggest all who want this blight to continue, to go to City Hall every other Thursday for the next year or two and speak at the Citizen's Forum (by the way it is no longer televised) and suggest to the Council that the City keep this property just like it is. If they take this advice, there will be at least three losers, the City, the Neighborhood and Mr. K. Or, perhaps better yet, Mr. K will come up with a viable business to occupy this property and make something out of it. I just have to think positive and hope and pray for the City, the Neighborhood and those folks involved, that there will be a happy ending for all.

I grew up in irving in the 1950's and vaguely recall this property being used commercially (though not necessarily using this building) back then. At least since the 1960's. Since the city limits were only extended south of Shady Grove in the late 1950's, possibly the property was not even in the city when it was first developed. Which is why it does not fit the rest of the neighborhood. That is, the neighborhood was built around it. There is a principle in property law that you take your property as it comes. The classic example is a gun range, diary farm, etc. out in the country gets surrounded by a residential area. The residents figure they can increase their property values for free by pressuring the local gummit to shut it down. Imagine their surprise when the courts rule against them. What you can do is buy out the owner at a market price. After an abortive attempt to compell the owner to tear down 1923 Senter rd. for free, this is what Irving agreed to do. But then they renigged on the deal and the details got into the court records.

I found it sicking that the Mayor used this property, (right of way only), to post his campaign signs and the signs of two other incumbants. Actually these signs were posted in the tall weeds and grass by firefighter union members expressing their 1st Amendment rights. The picture is posted on this page. Since the neighborhood was here first where are their rights to live in a neighborhood that is clean and neat? The abuse of the neighbors goes on while the city, lawyers and court keep messing around. They should all be required to have coffee on this property every morning at 6:30 AM untill the problem gets fixed. I'll provide the coffee, donuts, table and chairs.

Assuming you are correct about it lowering the neighbors property values-- this was discounted into their property values in the first place. I.e., they bought accepting that the place was there. Now, you maintain the propery owner at 1923 Senter should pay the price, just so their property values will go up. The economists call this "socialization of costs". I.e., let the other guy pay for something you profit from. Fortunately, ya take someone's property away for a social good, he must be compensated for it. Says so right in the 4th amendment. As for "kids doing drugs", etc.... Don't make me laugh. All moot anyway. Accordng to my Pacer account (which gives me access to federal court documents) The Federal judge slapped down the cities case and ordered them to settle with the owner. This settlement was for $225K, just to tear down the property and rezone it residential. Part of this was for "damages". i.e., the city admitted they committed a civil rights violation. Normally, this would all have been sealed and the city would have claimed a "victory" (unless you knew about the $225K). But the city renigged on the deal. So the property owner is now back in court, filing all sorts of motions giving us the details of this sordid mess.

FYI Sesquiculus: The owner has had a fuel tank in the ground for years, unused. The limit is one year and it should have been removed. The City required him to do this or pay big fines, that is the law, no harassment there. Also, the cost to the neighbors property value on all sides is over 7,000.00 each because his property is vacant. This is a fact and this is not fair and right that the owner leaves a vacant building that is attracting kids to break in and do drugs and hankey pankey or whatever. Very unsafe for the kids and very costly for the neighborhood. The property owner should sell it to the City for a reasonable price and be done with it. I have no feeings for a slum lord except disgust. Owners have responsibilities to their neighbors and their community. I hope the court finds the owner guilty of abuse and neglect. Irving needs to make it an asset not a liability, like it is now, and has been for years and years. Stop the blight.

I am willing to pay higher taxes if that is what it takes. I don't expect something for nothing, but 1923 Senter is ridiculous. I suggested turning the intersection into a Round-About to help with the morning and late afternoon traffic flow problems but the City might have to take the property on the East as well. Anyway, we will see what happens. In the meantime it is a good place for Gears to place his campaign signs ⦠in the tall weeds and grass ⦠please see my latest picture of this property. I donât advocate harassment. However, South Irvingites should show up at City Hall and tell the Council it is tired of the blight in South Irving and that they want real upgrades not just maintenance to sewer, water and gas utilities and a few empty buildings and few slum lord's apartments torn down. Upgrades, like burying the electrical utilities in South Irving would be a good start and to attract more developers like Mr. Delbert McDougalâs Heritage district renovation.

The newsies don't know where to look. So they have not got wind of it yet. But when this case ("Texas Lunch Box") went to federal court, the judge took one look and essentially ordered the city to settle with the property owner. While the city hoped to do urban renewal on the cheap, it is highly illegal and abusive to take property and not compensate the owner. The final deal was that for $225,000 the city got to tear down (at its own expense) the building and rezone and replat the land. The owner got to keep the land. If you don't know how much the city paid to tear down a building valued at 20K on the tax rolls, it looks like a "win". But this is purely cosmetic so the city can continue to bully property owners a little longer-- once it gets out, the game is up. Moreover, from other filings, it is clear that at least some of the $225K was damages to the owners. The deal was supposed to be secret. However, The city then welshed and is currently trying to overturn it. So the agreement and the details of making it show up in further court filings.

All this "something ought to be done stuff" is fine. But are you-all willing to pay for it? Easy to advocate some course of action that some other guy has to pay for. The city is attemptng urban renewal on the cheap by harassing property owners with overzealous code enforcement, but they are being slapped down on this, including having to pay a monster amount of money to tear down 1923 Senter. In Texas at least, you destroy somebodies property, ya gotta pay for it, even if is is aesthetically-unpleasing. Texas has pretty strong laws preventing use of eminant domain for anything but building a school or road, etc.

The Building and Standards Commission decided that they would reinstate their original order since Mr. Kim did not get his business open in a timely manner. So, the order to demolish this building is reinstated. However, Mr. Kimâs attorney has filed suit for a Temporary Injunction and has alleged a number of State and Federal violations. In my opinion, the only folks being violated here are the citizens of Irving and especially the neighbors of 1923 Senter, the students and faculty and their families that have had to endure this mess for all these years. The loss of property value for the neighbors is in the range of seven thousand dollars ($7,000.00) within 200 feet with a sliding scale downward as the distance increases. The cost of this one vacant property is almost impossible to calculate. 1923 Senter is one of dozens and dozens of vancant buildings in South Irving. None of us may live long enough to see them all torn down, but ⦠we can try to stay healthy by eating right and exercising frequently and hoping and praying. This case will be working its way through the courts and Iâll keep you posted.

Don't say good-by so fast. The Building and Standards Commission on August 6, 2007 stayed their decision to have this structure demolished to see if the owner can do something productive with the property. Mr. Sam Kim was ordered to remove the gas tank(s) ASAP and have leases or strong verbal commitments for all three of the business spaces by the end of August and have all the building permits pulled for the work that needs to be done to get these businesses opened. The B & S decision flies in the face of the testimony of the Irving Police Dept. and Mr. Bean the principal of Nimitz HS. There is a long history of trouble if this property is not secured. It invites young people, outside of the jurisdiction of the school, to congregate and this has caused many, many problems in the past.

Say good-by to this structure. On July 26, 2007 the Irving Building and Standards Committee voted 5-0 to have this building demolished and the gas tanks removed. Thanks go the B & S folks, City Hall, Mr. Bean the principal at Nimitz HS, Irving Police and Fire Depts. and all others that helped take this blight down. I also learned that if gas tanks remain unused for 1 year they are to be removed at the owner's expense. Do you know of any in town? The tanks on this property have been unused for years. Why, haven't they been removed before now you may ask? Good question. I believe it is SIN (South Irving Neglect).

Doug, If the property is worth $460K, then it should be increased to that value on the tax roll. Don

More signs of the decline of South Irving. At least this building is fenced in, it has all of its windows covered, the land does not have trash all over it and no graffiti. Sadly, other buildings are in far greater decline and are far worse examples of where Irving is heading.

Don, The owner for 1923 Senter, on the tax rolls, was Mr. Sam Kim. I spoke with him several years ago, and he believed that he can sell the property for 460K. No wonder it's vacant!!

Doug, Who owns this property? Don

Doug, I applaud your efforts in forwarding this link to the Irving city manager. Watch out Irving, here comes Doug! I know the city is working to improve South Irving but I think comments like this help make the process a little faster.

I think this is a Great Idea, as well. It will unfortunately require some police presence to keep the peace, but a great idea and there are plenty of off duty police officers that would probably love to make some extra cash. If South Irving would speak up, and pay attention to what the city council does, and does not do, we could effect big changes in all of South Irving, not just the one (1) square mile that Delbert McDougal is fixin to fix. McDougal is my hero and he will speed up the needed changes in South Irving by many years!! HIP! HIP! to Delbert. By the way, I forwarded this link to the city manager, Mr. Tommy Gonzales, yesterday. I don't expect an immediate response, but he is working hard to make significant positive changes in South Irving. HIP! HIP! to Tommy as well.

Lois...that is a great idea. Someone with the city should read these comments and start looking into it.

You know what would be great for this building is for some large church to buy that property and make it a hang out for the kids for after school and use it to form relationships and reach those kids for Christ. I.E. pool tables, ping pong, electronic games, other things like that. Present this idea to local churches and see if anyone gets a bite. They could sell concession type stuff to bring in money to cover expenses. I think it would be a great idea.

"Nothing says 'education' like a chain link fence and a boarded up abandoned building" - this comment from my husband Nick Arizpe, we are both Nimitz graduates. This old building reminds him of home, how sad.

We lived right down the street from this store when I was a young child. I was probably not very old, but do actually remember being in the store for something - back when it was functional and had a purpose. That was the last time, and it has been like this almost my entire childhood and young adult life. It's sad that the city has let the building stay here abandoned in front of one of the top rated academic high schools in the entire city. I think we owe our students more than this. If we truly want them to succeed, what kind of message are we sending? I wouldn't take pride in my school or neighborhood either if I had to stare at this every single day. Shame on the city. This should by no means be within regulation.

Hi Kristie, The above message: "Nimitz HS ghetto picture...", is an email i received from: Al Kohutek, Irving TX. He explains they have been fighting the city for years, as well, to have this place torn down or utilized for some viable business venture. I join his concern about this property and many others. We are tired of the creative excuses by the city for letting property like this devalue our neighborhoods and blight South Irving.

Doug, where did your last comment come from? These are some pretty harsh words and it seems you pulled the comments off of an e-mail or posting, just wondering... our readers are probably wondering where this information came from or whom it came from.

Subject: Nimitz HS ghetto picture I saw the picture you posted....here is a story....My son's cousins were visiting from out of town 4 years ago. He wanted to show them his school......when they got there the cousins asked if he went to a ghetto school. I really felt bad for him. I complained many times about this building to the city. Now my daughter goes there and it looks the same. The City of Irving is retarded!.....I live on Lake Vilbig and I can't begin to tell you the number of times the city has screwed us over.

Viewers agree, that the city should take this property and build something on it or bulldoze it. It will cost the city a lot of money but it would be priceless for the neighborhood, the Nimitz family of teachers, students and parents. Come on City of Irving, IISD and Dallas County, do something. This place is not going away by itself. How about turning it into a Navy / Armed Forces recruiting office or a micro park in honor of Admiral Chester Nimitz?