Mayor James Ireton, Jr. announces the City of Salisbury won a major victory in District Court last week. On November 7, 2011, District Court Judge Bruce Wade found the owners of the Feldman’s property downtown, guilty of not complying with the City’s demolition order dated May 19, 2011. The Judge ruled that the property owner failed to comply and gave the property owner until March 2012 to abate the infraction – which was demolition of the Feldman’s building.
The Feldman’s building was originally condemned by the City of Salisbury on October 31, 2008.
“I want to make it clear that this administration has worked from every direction for the redevelopment or demolition of this property. I believe that this building or the property this building is located on, is essential to kick-starting a revitalization wave downtown. Recent City Council action on Station 16 stalled development talks with Mr. Palmer Gillis on the Feldman’s property. During this time, we proceeded in court and were victorious. One way or another I will move the City toward a resolution through which this property realizes its full potential and is an anchor in downtown revitalization,” said Mayor Ireton.
The Feldman’s building was originally condemned by the City of Salisbury on October 31, 2008.
“I want to make it clear that this administration has worked from every direction for the redevelopment or demolition of this property. I believe that this building or the property this building is located on, is essential to kick-starting a revitalization wave downtown. Recent City Council action on Station 16 stalled development talks with Mr. Palmer Gillis on the Feldman’s property. During this time, we proceeded in court and were victorious. One way or another I will move the City toward a resolution through which this property realizes its full potential and is an anchor in downtown revitalization,” said Mayor Ireton.
New Posts to fall below.
25 comments:
Well, now that MR. Gillis won't have to take on the cost of demolishing, maybe he can still make something happen there.
It is my opinion that Gillis Builders is not interested in any downtown Salisbury project that doesn't come with heavy subsidies- on the backs of the taxpayers, of course.
I don't deny that some cities have been successful with subsidies to revitalize down towns,but not in this economy.
The trouble lies with Ireton- he has a track record of taking on taxpayer boondoggles. The Bricks and Linens properties come directly to mind....
Where's that bomb when you need it.
"Recent City Council action on Station 16 stalled development talks with Mr. Palmer Gillis on the Feldman’s property."
Ya really think that Mayor? Or maybe action was stalled in order to hear the outcome of this court ruling?
When the firehouse was advertised in the paper it appeared to be only the firehouse and not the additional two parcels at the canal. Was that advertising done by one of Ireton's inept staff or was it done with intent to favor only one bidder? Does make one think.
For real!- who in their right mind is going to purchase a condemned building, knowing there is legal action pending which might result in the current owner having to bear the cost of demolition.
You can ask that quesion until you are blue in the face 11:50 and you will not get a straight answer. You'll get called a "conspiracist" is about all you'll get.
I think maybe the additional parcels got slipped in during negotiations between Gillis and the city legal rep.
11:17,it was over the city yesterday!
It goes to show that giving away the firehouse for pennies on the dollar under the umbrella of a contract that was in default wasn't the only way to get something going on the firehouse. Either the council didn't know about the court proceeding or did and didn't say because it was litigation and they didn't want to put the city at risk. Either way, the Mayor and his staff look like the inept bunch that they are. Go TIm, Debbie & Terry.
Sad to see it go. As a contractor who specializes in renovations, it sucks to see something with great old charm go down the tubes. You're not going to get that type of brickwork on a new build. Ireton is a fool, just look at his record.
Its cheaper to demolish it and build new than to restore it
1:24 -
If that ugly dump is "great old charm" I would hate to see what your house looks like!
1:36, You mist not have visited the many successful downtown areas in small cities that have retained the brick facades (and when possible the insides) of old buildings like that and used that character to attract many businesses and economic vitality. Some have even intermingled "old main street" with new stores like Target and Whole Foods. Those places are very busy and the stores and tax base do well.
1:54-
Just because a building is older than you are doesn't make it attractive or historic. Whoever designed that "facade" must have been paid by the job not the hour.
I can see 1:24's point to a point. Any attempt at restoring this building would be a nightmare though. I know people with a rather extra large historic home in a neighboring county and even finding someone to do work on the house is problematic. With these older properties it seems everything you start opens another can of worms. My friends have no problem getting contractors to come and look at what needs to be done, but most are not willing to take on the different projects.
Mr./Ms. 1:54 PM
We already made one mistake trying to rejuvenate a crappy brick building because some deemed it "historic" -- can you say "The Bricks" -- so lets not shoot our other foot.
It seems a shame that, until 2008, about 50 small businesses operated inside Feldman's Antique Mall. I was one of those dealers whose business was shut down. While the building certainly had some issues, it is a wonderful old edifice built in the late 19th century. The facade could have been restored to its former glory. As a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I favor doing all we can to presrve our heritage. I realize that "ugly dump" and "great old charm" are in the eyes of the beholders; I have to go along with the latter view. So sad!
The cities where the Targets and the Whole Foods have moved in are not small that's for sure. I'm thinking downtown Arlington VA for example. There's a ton of people who not only live in that downtown area but also work downtown.
Yes the facade could be restored but at a cost which far exceeds any return anyone would see on the property.
I was in Feldman's when it was the antique mall and the building had many issues which obviously had the owner been seeing a return they most likely would have corrected. I don't even know how they were able to get liability insurance on the place.
For Ireton to blame the council for Feldman's is ridiculous. That was NOT part of the old Firehouse deal.
Gillis was betting one deal on another that had not closed. When you play at the real estate casino, don't bet the rent money or the roulette ball might not land where you bet it will.
Ireton's delusional.
He can't force Cohen, Campbell & Co to make a sweetheart deal with the Gillises.
And the City says they don't have the money to tear down the building.
BS is BS.
So to all of the experts chiming in on this. How many Historic buildings have you successfully restored since it seems everyone is an expert.
...like the old mall???
7:29, 1 (one) and been going just about non stop "restoring" it since 1986. Joe's correct in saying there a lot of re-restoring that needs to be done, alot of it what is not visible to the eye-things such as having the 2" drain pipe leading out the the city sewer replaced with a larger one, so Roto Rooter doesn't have to be called on a yearly basis and which will also bring it up to code.
Repointing brickwork and repairing mortar joints, painting which always leads to finding rotted wood. Not to mention none of these old buildings with plaster walls have insulation which signifcantly adds to heating and cooling costs.
To 11/17/11 11:50. PLEASE read the RFP. The original RFP included the two parcels and the road bed. Quit beating a this issue and get your facts and READ IT. The reply to the RFP included it as well in the PUBLIC document.
Post a Comment