To call 32 Jefferson Terrace a dump would be an insult to dumps everywhere. The ground-floor windows are boarded up, the second-story windows are gone and the frames are smashed and hanging loose, the porch roof is almost completely collapsed, and pieces of the house lie on the sidewalk. It's a wonder, frankly, that the house still stands at all.

"Tear it down! Tear it down!" shouts a man from across the street. A tall-for-his-age 4-year-old hangs on to the man's leg. "People have been in there sleeping, doing this and doing that. I go on over there one time and I saw things ripping and running... raccoons, possums, folks...."

The Jefferson Terrace house is one of 200 properties on the city's demolition list, and one of 2,800 vacant structures - residential and commercial - in Rochester.

Bret Garwood, director of the city's department of business and housing development, says he's often asked why the city can't move more swiftly to demolish vacant houses, which have a negative economic, social, and visual impact on neighborhoods. The reality, Garwood says, is that demolition is the last step in what can be a complicated and drawn-out process. And all of it is dependent on money.

But, Garwood says, the city is trying to speed up demolitions and to demolish more strategically so cleared land can be developed or used as open space or park land.

Tearing down 32 Jefferson Terrace is exactly what City Council member Dana Miller says he's been trying to get done for five years.

"It's a real nuisance," he says. "There are holes in the roof. The house has been boarded, and then people pull the boards off and go in and do who knows what."

The house has been stuck in a peculiar limbo. It was donated to a church, which planned to renovate it. But church officials eventually decided they couldn't afford to fix it. Nor could they afford to demolish it; it costs about $20,000 to tear down a house, Garwood says.

The church eventually donated the property to the city; City Council approved the donation last week. Now that the city owns the house, it can tear it down.

That probably won't happen right away, however. Houses on the demolition list have to undergo an asbestos survey and abatement, Garwood says, and that can take months. The city has a firm under contract for the asbestos work, but work gets bid out, too.

"The demolition process in itself is pretty involved," Garwood says. "But also sometimes people see a vacant property and they think it's slated for demolition, but that doesn't mean it's going to be demolished in the next month."

Homes get on the city's demolition list in different ways.

If the property is unsafe - it's been through a fire or has started to collapse, for example - the city can do an immediate demolition.

"Those are very uncommon," Garwood says.

If the owners are more than a year behind on their property taxes, the city can start a tax foreclosure process. That can lead to the city taking ownership and eventually demolishing the property.

Foreclosure takes about a year, Garwood says. After that, the asbestos work would begin.

The other option is a private demolition hearing. If there are documented problems with the property, such as health and safety code violations, the city can bring the owner in for a hearing. Often, owners are given a set timetable to fix the problems. If they don't, the city can demolish the home and bill the owner.

"That sounds good," Garwood says. "But those are pretty rare occurrences, too."

It all depends on how much money is available, he says. The city's demolition budget is between $3 million and $4 million annually, he says. This year it's $3 million, which will pay for about 150 demolitions.

"So we don't bring many, many, many people in for private demolition hearings because we wouldn't have the funds to demolish them anyway," Garwood says.

About a year ago, the city began using its environmental services department to oversee and conduct demolitions, in addition to hiring private contractors. That has helped speed things up, Garwood says.

The city has also begun selling tax liens. That means money for the city, Garwood says, and could result in fewer people losing their homes and fewer homes ending up on the demolition list. The companies buying the liens can be more flexible about paying back taxes than the city legally can, Garwood says.

The city is also changing the way it handles demolitions, he says. Garwood is working with City Council, Mayor Bob Duffy, community groups, and other interested parties to create a more strategic demolition process.

"Let's figure out a way to demolish the absolute worst of the worst properties," Garwood says. "And let's do demolition in a way that will allow us to do something that will be an asset or part of a community revitalization effort in an area."

The city has an aggressive demolition plan, Garwood says, that's gotten a big boost in the past from a state competitive grant program. But that program isn't presently available, Garwood says.

"But the idea of trying to put together a strategic program to deal with vacancy has been talked about at the state and federal level," he says. "So we're hopeful that new programs and resources may be made available."