Owner of North Side drug den told to raze it or go to jail can instead find buyer |

Owner of North Side drug den told to raze it or go to jail can instead find buyer

Justin Merriman | Trib Total Media
901 Constance St. on the North Side on Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014.
Justin Merriman | Trib Total Media
901 Constance St. on the North Side on Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014.

The owner of a North Side drug den must sell the house within 30 days to a buyer who will live there while fixing it up, or the city can demolish it, an Allegheny County judge ordered Thursday.

The decision by Common Pleas Judge David R. Cashman gave owner Michael Bucaro, 45, a slight reprieve from a May order requiring him to have the property at 901 Constance St. torn down or face jail time.

Cashman rendered his decision as lawyers for the city went to court to ask him to enforce the order because Bucaro tried to sell the property to a construction company and use proceeds from the sale to pay $7,000 in lawyer’s fees and a $10,000 fine.

Assistant City Solicitor Stephanie Eggar said Bucaro and his lawyer, Michael Foglia, were trying to usurp the judge’s order by attempting to sell the property without notifying the buyer about the demolition order.

Foglia said he was “quite shocked and really affronted” by Eggar’s accusation.

He said he approached the city with a sales agreement in an attempt to come to a resolution without demolition, because razing the house would negatively affect two nearby properties.

Foglia said he planned to seek the judge’s approval.

“We were trying to do it by consent,” he said. “We’re not trying to avoid the situation here.”

Foglia said he hopes to find a buyer and close on a deal before the judge’s deadline. The next hearing is Dec. 22.

Bucaro’s property was among the city’s most visited by police since 2009. According to court records, officers went to the house 59 times between January 2009 and December. They found 101 stamp bags of heroin, 15 needles, a crack pipe and crack cocaine during seven searches.

Bucaro, who spent 90 days in jail for failing to comply with the judge’s orders to evict tenants, board up the house, make repairs and pay the fine, said nothing during the hearing. Cashman had a sheriff’s deputy place Bucaro in handcuffs and hold him in custody through lunch. He was released at the end of the hearing.

The hearing took a sideways turn when David Dean, Bucaro’s real estate agent, showed Cashman an Oct. 2 email from Matthew Barron, Mayor Bill Peduto’s policy manager, who wrote that several city departments — at the mayor’s direction — had convinced the judge and District Attorney’s Office to withdraw the demolition order and force Bucaro to sell the property.

Cashman brought Barron into court to ask him which judge he spoke with and how he arrived at some of the information in his email.

Barron acknowledged that he had not spoken to a judge. He said someone in the city Planning Department saw the house was listed for sale and assumed the parties struck an accord. “I was operating on the information I was given,” Barron told the judge.

Councilwoman Darlene Harris said she is disappointed with Cashman’s decision. Neighbors in the North Side generally don’t like vacant lots, Harris said, but would make an exception in this case.

“This is one property that would be better off (torn) down,” she said.

Adam Brandolph is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach him at 412-391-0927.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.