Firefighters responded to a house on 85th and 6th Ave. a little after 1 a.m.
Here’s a camera phone photo of firefighters on the roof of the house, which was reported as abandoned. Soon after firefighters arrived, the fire was under control. Dana Vander Houwen with Seattle Fire says that this was accidental fire caused by improperly discarded smoking material, which ignited dry grass and debris on the exterior of the vacant home. The damage estimate is $70,000. This is the same abandoned house where a suspicious fire broke out last November. (Thanks Silver and Rob for your help on the story!)
Fire in abandoned house on 85th Ave.
My husband and I live across the street from this house (technically in Greenwood) and watched the firefighters work last night at 1:30 am to put out this fire. Hats off to them for their quick response time and ability to keep it under control and away from other inhabited homes.
The P.I. 911 blog has an item on this now:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/1…
Here's a lesson, kids. Don't toss you're cigarette onto dry grass.
I'm glad it was at least unoccupied.
Unfortunately, if it was occupied, there might not have been people hanging out there smoking in the dry grass in the middle of the night.
Or better yet, if this “house” was no longer standing at all.
This house has been vacant/abandoned for what seems like ages now.
I'm SUPER tolerant of what people choose to do with their property, but I wonder why there isn't any sort of…anything to prevent people from just letting houses rot like this.
I wouldn't care one bit, except that they are just an invitation for homeless people or kids to hang out in, which can lead to stuff like this happening.
Obviously, anyone's house can catch on fire, no matter what condition it is in, but also obviously, people who don't have any vested interest in the property probably aren't that careful.
Wait a sec. Not that I'm disagreeing with your rant but where in the story does it say it was kids hanging out smoking? I often see people just walking by on the sidewalk and tossing cigarettes (without even looking to see where it landed or if it was still lit) onto the grass.
I should clarify that I am aware that the city does not currently allow a tear down without a permit for a new building (something which has been discussed on here previously), and I understand why that is.
In fact, I was just reading about how that may change sooner than later.
I think it's too little too late though – in this economy, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of property owners have no interest in spending the money for a demolition and many of these hazards could remain standing.
I'd like to see it go a step further, and if a building is completely unsafe and un-rehabitable, it should be demo'd.
You definitely have a point, and that may be the case.
I was just trying to point out that a house like this is a hazard because people could be hanging out inside, smoking, or using candles for light, etc.
Also though, if you've ever been by this house, it is set a bit away from the sidewalk, I believe. While I suppose a casually tossed, still lit cigarette could have burned across the yard up to the house, it sounds like whatever it was was discarded right next to the structure. Also, as the story notes, there was a fire here less than a year ago.
And it is not the only house like this in the neighborhood. There are plenty, and many have broken out windows, in which it is obvious that someone has been in there who should not have been.
My first thought is that a property owner who has no interest in spending the money for demolition might toss a cigarette into dry grass in the middle of the night. Two fires seems a little suspicious!
You're probably right about what happened here. I'm trying to picture what house this must be but can't.
But until I hear more I'm not going to let the so-called responsible adults off the hook either. ;-)
Also a good point and another reason why abandoned, rotting buildings should probably not be allowed to be left standing!
Oh, the temptation of insurance $$!
Here's an idea… lets have homeless people be caretakers for all these abandoned/empty houses in the neighborhood – then they can yell at the teens who like to hang out there and tag crap and cause this sort of thing to happen. =|
Surprised this place didn't go up like a torch around the 4th with all that tall, dry grass and fireworks going off.
The title of this story is misleading. There is no 85th ave. in Ballard. However, there is an 85th ST. Streets travel east and west, Avenues travels north and south. Big Difference.
Kind of OT, but it really makes me ill to see people dropping cigarette butts on the ground, not even surreptitiously but right in front of everyone. People wouldn't do that in public with a candy wrapper any more (I don't mean they don't ever litter, but at least they're slightly ashamed to do so in public) — why is it okay with a cigarette end? Find a trash can, or pinch it and put it in your pocket. It's your trash. Deal with it.
I've had to grab one out of my 2 year old hands, it's disgusting.
Another article with a better photo: http://fireline.seattle.gov/2009/08/12/no-injur…
A fair amount of smokers don't even consider a cigarette butt to be litter. Therefore throwing it on the ground or out the car window isn't littering. Since we don't have police on the beat, there isn't that chance of a littering ticket to get the message across.
I haven't had my coffee yet, so help me understand this…
You want homeless/transients/bums/drug addicts to squat in abandoned buildings to prevent teenagers from going in them? What is the benefit of having one group of people with no incentive to maintain a property prevent access by another group with no incentive to maintain a property?
Offering the properties for rent, or even subsidized rent is one thing, but simply allowing squatters is never a beneficial proposition. Have you ever seen the inside of a squat? The intense amount of damage that is caused is far above what you can imagine.