Salisbury Taxpayers on the Hook for More Spending

In the name of eradicating blight, the Barrie Comegys bloc of the Salisbury City Council has put the city’s taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of thousands (and probably millions) of dollars.  By taking possession of the “Linens of the Week” property, and absolving the owners of all environmental liability, the city can now spend, spend, spend.  Police can be furloughed, ambulance crews can be cut, but somehow Louise Smith and her cohorts will make sure that money will be spent to tear down a property that will be an open ended environmental fiasco.

Smith, et al, argue that the city will receive “Brownfield Grants” from the feds.  They might.  However, they might not.  Even if they do receive help from Annapolis and the federal government, it is doubtful that these grants will cover the full freight of cleaning up contaminated soils and demolishing a building guaranteed to be full of asbestos.

There are only two possible results from this maneuver:

One, the city will go deeper into debt to fix this problem.  Even then, they will never be able to turn the property over to Habitat for Humanity or another non-profit without absolving them of liability.  It is doubtful that Habitat’s board is as foolish as the majority of Salisbury’s council.

Two, the city will decide that they aren’t to going to borrow the money to mitigate this problem.  Then you are back where you started … EXCEPT that now the city is on the hook for any damage caused by the polluted property.

During last night’s debate a comparison was made between this property and “The Bricks”.  The estimated cost of renovating that property is now up to the $1 million mark.  Council’s leading intellectual – Shanie Shields – rebutted by asking how much money had been spent on “The Bricks”.  The question was rhetorical, and we all knew that the answer was ZERO.  However, what was the point of taking over “The Bricks”?  It was to get a blighted property renovated.  With the “Linens of the Week” property we are faced with a similar dilemma.  If the property isn’t mitigated, it will still be a blight.  Now that the city has accepted the “donation”, there will be a call to spend however much it takes.  If not, the argument will go, how can the city “recoup its investment”?  They can’t, at least not this way.