Do you think City taxpayers should foot the bill to tear down Feldman's?The reason I mention this is because, I look further into the future. I can see a developer doing pretty darned well off the City taking down those buildings. You see, WE can't take down the three story portion of that building but the City can.
That being said, is someone getting the deal of a lifetime? I'm keeping a keen eye on this deal, let me tell you.
No they shouldnt, but you know they will.
ReplyDeletewho ever owns it. It's the owners responsibility.
ReplyDeleteNO but we will... as always and as usual...
ReplyDeleteThen the cost of demolishion should be attached to the cost of the property. If demolishion makes property value increase on the backs of the tax payers.
ReplyDeleteThe cost is the responsibility of the owner. If unpaid, it should become a lien on the deed, payable at tax time. If not paid then, it should be auctioned off for the recovery of funds.
ReplyDelete11:37 I agree. Current owner or future owner, current owner should pay just makes too much sense huh?
ReplyDeleteDeals like this will cost the city taxpayers another double digit tax increase.
Was it realistically condemned or conveniently condemned?
ReplyDeleteIf realistically, then the owner that allowed it to fall to that state should be liable...if conveniently, then the new owner - someone got a sweet deal!
Expect the worst for the taxpayer under Ireton.
ReplyDeleteThw bone head who runs the city wants it torn down then he should pay for it.
ReplyDeleteDo like Barrie did at the old Mall -- bribe them with a TIF deal to get them to demolish it!
ReplyDeleteI think the minorities should foot the bill . They are the reason they closed.
ReplyDeleteAnyway , Salisbury is the place NOT to live , that's for sure.
The name " Salisbury" is even stupid. Sounds like food or fruit or anything but a city.
Sounds like the name of a town in England to me.
ReplyDelete2:30, yes, and there was a Lord Salisbury. Lots of names here are British. Where do people think "Worcester" came from?
ReplyDeleteI know the owner, and the owner cannot afford to tear down Feldman's. If he had that kind of money, he would have been spending it on getting it fixed and back to code. Unless someone else buys the building and then tears it down at his expense, then it looks as if the city will have to tear it down ("city" meaning taxpayers, of course).
ReplyDelete1:47, I'm intrigued by your statement that Feldman's closed because of "the minorities," who should foot the bill. I with that you would expound on that a little. I really can't figure out how Feldman's closing can be attributed to minorities.
ReplyDeleteThe City had better do something creative with this property and all the others in town that are vacant.
ReplyDeleteAny money they spend or incentives they provide will earn handsome returns over the years.
Otherwise, Salisbury will decline further & faster.
Maybe those who are opposed to tearing down old buildings should create a fund to help the owners with the ongoing repairs that one faces with these old structures?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many stories of families having to sell off land parcels just to maintain their ancestral homes. One here in MD that comes to mind is the Carroll's of Doughoregan Manor in Ellicott City.
The city has money to loan for new businesses, they just lent $50,000 to Mojo's.
ReplyDeleteJust because you don't have the money for improvements is no excuse for not getting the work done.
City homeowners are subject to fines if they get citations that aren't dealt with in a reasonable period of time. So should business owners.
Because of neglect over the last twenty years is no excuse for the taxpayers to provide welfare to the owners.
10:51 says-"Just because you don't have the money for improvements is no excuse for not getting the work done."
ReplyDeleteI actually can not think of a better excuse really unless you can get the materials for free and any expert labor you may need for free.
And you can add to that the city waiving the fees for permits.