It’s been a few long years for Rebecca Garcia and her family as they’ve tried to sell their home on Grant Road.
The Garcias, who have owned the home since 2003, have certainly outgrown the two-bedroom bungalow. Rebecca and her husband, Javier, have three kids, ranging from 16 months to 7 years old.
But unloading the house, which sits just west of the Grant Road and Campbell Avenue intersection, has proved impossible because the city plans to demolish the house to widen Grant Road—although not for another six or seven years.
So even if the Garcias could find a buyer, it’s unlikely that a bank would loan money for a house that is scheduled for demolition.
The Garcias had hoped that the city of Tucson would acquire the house as part of an early-acquisition program. Back in 2007, a year after Pima County voters approved the Grant Road widening as part of a 2006 road improvement project that created the Regional Transportation Authority, they were told that they might qualify for the program.
But then the city changed the construction schedule and informed them they were no longer eligible for an early acquisition.
The situation got worse in 2013, when a van crashed through the wall in front of their house and nearly struck the bedroom where Garcia’s two girls slept. (She was then pregnant with her third child.)
After the Weekly wrote about their predicament (“Grant Road Rage,” June 13, 2013), it appeared as if city officials were going to make it possible for the city to acquire the house. The City Council voted to change the policy to allow some early acquisition in hardship cases; the Regional Transportation Authority agreed to come up with some funding.
“We thought that’s all we needed,” Garcia says. “The hurdle up to that point had been a lack of funding. We were thrilled.”
A firm hired by the city, Tierra Right of Way, came by in October 2013 to begin the process of inspecting the Garcia’s house. Garcia said the company “did many, many inspections over the course of the year.”
As weeks dragged into months with no straight answer from the city, the family finally had enough. They figured this situation wouldn’t drag on all that much longer, so they moved out of the house in March 2014. It was an impulsive move, driven by desperation, and the family ended up moving three times in a short period before finally settling on a rental home owned by a friend in June 2014.
As the situation with the city continued without any resolution, they decided to rent the Grant Road. The rent payments don’t cover the cost of the mortgage, however, so “it’s being rented at a loss,” says Garcia.
Finally, late last month, Garcia went down to the offices of Tierra Right Of Way to get some kind of an answer about the house. And as she waited, a Tierra employee typed up a letter that delivered bad news indeed: Because the house needed about $7,500 worth of repairs to make it a viable rental for the city, the city was not going to be interested in purchasing the house until such a time as it needed to demolish it for the widening project.
Once again, the Garcias were told they were not eligible for early acquisition.
Hector Martinez, who heads the city of Tucson’s real-estate division, said that when he reviewed the reports from Tierra Right of Way, he was convinced that buying the Garcia’s home would be a bad investment for the city.
He said that repairs to the home to bring it up to the city’s standards for a rental (which are more strict than a private individual’s standards) would cost at least $7,500—and possibly more because inspectors saw signs of asbestos that would need to be abated.
And—in an ironic twist—because the Garcias now have renters in the home, the renters would become eligible for additional dollars for relocation, even though that benefit would not have been available for the Garcias.
Martinez said it’s his job to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars, so the need for the repairs, coupled with the trouble of renting the home for the next six or seven years before it is eventually demolished, led to his decision to not make an offer to buy the Garcia’s house.
“I’d rather use those funds for a project that’s active,” Martinez says. “I can use those funds for acquisition instead of an investment property where there’s a lot of unknowns. Whether I’m a governmental entity or a private investor, would that be a good use of taxpayer dollars to buy this?”
Ward 3 Councilwoman Karin Uhlich, whose office in right down the street from the Garcias’ home, was surprised and distressed to hear the city had declined to make an offer.
“It’s enormously frustrating,” said Uhlich, who worked to change the city’s policy so that the Garcia’s house could be acquired. “It seems to me to be a real reneging on our agreement in 2013. … At a minimum, the decision needs some kind of review. It needs to be reviewed for reconsideration.”
Garcia said she’d be happy to entertain a lower offer on the house in light of the needed repair or would consider having the repairs done herself. She never intended to be a landlord and just wants to unload the house so her family can have enough money for a down payment on a new one. She hopes that some kind of deal can still be made.
“We feel like we’re robbing our kids of a normal childhood because we feel like we’re in a temporary situation and we’d like to put in a swing set and put down some roots,” Garcia said.
This article appears in Feb 12-18, 2015.
And the voters keep electing the same councils (or very nearly so) year after year after year.
How about electing some REAL candidates, with more than just their own neighborhoods in mind?
Remember this when the City comes courting your neighborhoods for annexation with the Tucson residents money in their bank account to pay for your freebies…(it will be shortlived at best) No free lunch folks.
They can not be trusted.
What a total screw up job by the City. Grant Road likely won’t be completed in the next 10 years.
Eventually the city will need to buy the house. (Or do they plan on siezing it under ‘Eminant Domain?’) Why don’t they buy it NOW and raze it, as planned. One more item they will not have to deal with down the road. IMHO, Grant does not need widening, anyhow. Sync up the traffic signals so you don’t have to stop for all of them, and fix the potholes, and Grant will work just fine. Might need to reverse the synced lights for travel in the opposite direction in the evening.
We’re supposed to feel sorry because the kids will be “robbed” of “a normal childhood” because their parents made a poor decision on buying that house in the first place?
This story is total BS.
Where is the hardship? Where is the injustice? Why do these people think they deserve special treatment just because they want to get out of their house early????
For once I applaud the city of actually playing by the rules.
These people deserve no special consideration. They own a house, they should live in that house. And, when the time comes, the city will purchase that house at a fair market price when it is appropriate.
Case closed.
And here is the TW … once again looking for an injustice and in particular, ANY perceived injustice against a minority.
Give it a rest, Jim.
Bring back the Grant Road suicide lane!!! That made for a thrilling rush hour.
When they bought the house, it was in a nice quiet neighborhood and there was no Grant widening project. Now the house is dangerous for their kids because the neighborhood had gradually been getting worse. They have had people drive through their wall and almost into the kid’s bedroom twice. There have been many, many other things that have happened that made it an absolutely necessity for them to get out. The city promised that they would buy the house, reneged on their promise and condemned the house. That is not playing by the rules.
@jecelyn ~ Get your facts (and your nose) straight.
There is no Grant Road widening yet near their home, so you cannot claim that the widening project is responsible for the neighborhood getting worse or people driving through their wall.”
The house still has renters living in it, a house that may have asbestos and other code violations.
So if you look at the situation rationally, THAT IS playing by the rules …
The reported story is unclear in one area. A van crashed through the wall in 2013 causing damage. The City won’t buy the house until $7500 of repairs are undertaken. Did the Garcias not repair the damage from the van crash? They would have received insurance payments from either the driver’s auto insurance and/or their homeowners insurance. Did they pocket that money instead of using it for repairs? Without knowing that , its hard to be sympathetic for them.
Yes, they repaired the wall.
Originally, the road widening for their phase was supposed to have been completed in 2009. Every year the city pushes it back further. It was then supposed to be 2012, 2014, 2016, and now it’s 2021-2024, but I imagine it will be pushed back more. They are stuck because you can’t sell a home that is supposed to be torn down. What lender will fund a loan on a house that will no longer be standing in 30 years (the typical life of a loan)? The Garcias want to be able to sell their home to buy another one (something many people do every day), but they can’t because the city has left them in limbo.
First of all, this is not a City of Tucson project. Its an RTA project. The time line can be seen on its website- http://www.grantroad.info/ . It was never 2012. And Grant and Campbell was a “nice quiet neighborhood” in 2003! I lived near that intersection in the late ’70’s and it wasn’t nice and quiet then!
They bought the house expecting to get an early windfall from the city, and it didn’t happen. Why should we feel sorry that their speculation didn’t pan out? They knew about the construction, and any idiot knows road projects are often delayed.
Of course, they could take out a 2nd, invest $7500 in repairs (or, God forbid, do them themselves, or ask friends to help, or ask their church to help…), get their renters out, and thus comply with what the city wants. But instead they’ll just whine and wait for ‘someone’ to come fix ‘their unfair situation’. Bullshit.
I believe that this house will cost $7,500 more in a few years. At a certain point, a 60 – 70 year old house is going to need maintenance that goes above and beyond just because of changes in code for electrical and asbestos. It would be spending good money after bad, since in the end these houses will be razed regardless of condition. The owners goofed, the City and RTA are not spending ahead of the project, so now it is up to the owners. Me? If the City/RTA won’t discuss a variance on requirements given the circumstances, I would discuss leaving the keys with the bank and taking the credit hit.