Posted: 5:00 p.m. Friday, May 24, 2013

Staff Writer

A group of downtown supporters do not want the city to demolish the former Rose Furniture building.

Neither does the city’s own Historic Commission, though the city’s community revitalization department has filed an appeal and it will be re-heard at the May 30 commission meeting. The commission’s nine-member board voted to deny the application at the May 16 meeting.
Well this same Historic Commission had nothing to say when Ms Judy was going to demo the Vault at the Middletown Cemetery however now that it involves a property on Main Street this building must be saved...

A small contingent of property owners and supporters of the downtown attended City Council’s Tuesday meeting asking the city-owned building at 36 S. Main St. not be razed.

“A complete demolition would create a dead space, a black hole, a front tooth missing in the smile of that block,” said Lewitt, who represents the ownership of the adjacent U.S. Hotel at 34 S. Main St. “It will be another lot for the city to mow, maintain and to sit on for who knows how long. Instead, why not save the facade?”
But ,but, but City Hall can always use another parking lot. City Hall does not care what the entire block looks like, just take a look at the other blocks of THEIR DOWNTOWN.

Doug Adkins, Middletown’s Community Revitalization director, filed the appeal. He could not be reached for comment, but according to an three-page appeal, with 14 pages of support from two experts, indicates repairing the building, or even giving it away, is not justifiable.
Well Mr Adkins it sure was not a problem for City Hall to give away all the other buildings. Has Art Central started restoring their building yet since it was not up to code at the time of transfer?

“If the building was donated by the city to a new owner, I respectfully submit that there is no possible use nor could the building be adapted for any other potential use that could justify a reasonable rate of return … ,” Adkins wrote.
Rate of Return?   City Hall hasn't even broke even on the other buildings that they purchased in THEIR DOWNTOWN.

The building, appraised for $40,360 (which does not include the $34,570 value of the land), would cost $47,600 to repair the building according to an August 2011 estimate, but did not include roof or structural repairs. Adkins wrote that the city received an estimate that would cost the city $400,000 to make the necessary repairs and remove any hazardous materials from the building built in the early 1900s.
And lookie here, now even the downtown lots has value. Just a few months ago we were told that these buildings had very little value.

According to the letter sent to the city’s building department from city’s planning director, Marty Kohler, who also serves as the historic preservation administrator, the commission denied the application for demolition for five reasons, some of which were similar to Lewitt’s points:

• the facade has “significant architectural value” and adds to the value of the row of buildings along the block;
• the demolition is based on the poor condition of the property “which is the result of the willful neglect of the property by the city of Middletown;
• significant evidence on attempts to preserve the property was not presented by the city;
• the worst damage is in the rear and demolition of that part should be explored while retaining the Main St. facade;
• the building “could be a valuable asset” for the downtown as it continues revitalization.
   

 

If they are so valuable, why haven't they been maintained and used for anything meaningful?

By allowing them to fall into such distressed condition for so long, their owners are pretty much saying that they honestly don't care about them, and in most cases are expecting someone else to maintain and/or restore them. Well--there is no one out there to do that any more. There are far more important issues out there.

 

jmo

 

jmo

 

Is it really true that Mr. Akins staff recently cited your residential property for a "debatable" code violation?  And, did he finally have demolished the long dilapidated homes adjacent to you on Waite Street plus Grand Avenue?

 

Thanks for your previous efforts to try to have Mr. Akins mow two to three foot tall weeds/grass near you at properties on Waite Street, Grand Avenue, etc.  Knowing that Mr. Akins reads posts on this blog, I guess that he wanted to send you a message?

 

Keep up the good work !

 

 

By http://www.middletownjournal.com/staff/michael-d-pitman/" rel="nofollow - Staff Writer

MIDDLETOWN —

The chair of the Middletown Historic Commission voiced her disagreement with City Council this week about the city’s attempt to have the former Rose Furniture building demolished.

Last month, the Historic Commission voted 5-2 to support the city’s hardship appeal as to why it needed to demolish the building at 36 S. Main St. in the historic South Main District. But the commission said everything but the facade is permitted to be demolished.

Commission chair Nancy Romero told City Council on Tuesday “shame on you” for acquiring a building “you had no intention of doing anything with,” not maintaining the building “to the level you expect the citizens” to maintain their properties, and intending to spend $300,000 to demolish the building “when you could have repaired that building for only $47,000 two years ago.”

The building has fallen into disrepair, mostly because of a leaky roof. The damages sustained to the building have also affected the adjoining building to the north at 34 S. Main St.

She also was critical of the city for its hardship appeal to the Historic Commission, which turned down the order for demolition earlier in the month, “when you did not meet the three points necessary for a hardship case.”

She also did not think the city should have had Community Revitalization Director Doug Adkins “bully and threaten” the Historic Commission into approving the appeal.

Last week, Romero told The Journal that Adkins had “bullied” the commission into approving the appeal, saying City Council would “override” any negative decision. Adkins said he was “candid” in his presentation and was honest of what the city’s next steps would be if the commission would turn down the request.

Adkins said last week that the next step in demolishing the building will be to seek request for proposals for demolition estimates.

He acts like a bully when he stands before City Council also.
Remember his famous quote "Give me the POWER and I will make it happen".
Let's see if he enjoys being bullied by HUD

 

It's strange how two frequent MUSA participants continue to sing the praises of Mr. Akins.

 

When you look at the past four years you see many bold proclamations like the 2,300 home code violation blitzkrieg, the 20-year $50 Million NSP plan for impacted neighborhoods, the loss of up to $75,000 per home in the NSP boondoggle, the replacement of CONSOC with Nelson & Associates, the world famous Inspection Group that was brought in to "upgrade" Section 8 property violations (not to mention their quick departure because of numerous problems), blanket demolition of 300 houses mostly in Ward 2, the absence of any known redevelopment plans for the 300 vacant lots, the high cost of program delivery and program administration fees as a percentage of the budget, etc. etc.  What a record that city sttaf has created (not) with milllions of HUD funds!

 

Mr. Akins boosters, please tell us your version of cost accountability, housing market rejuvination in Ward 2 plus parts of Ward 1, proper expenditure of HUD funds to upgrade the city and its' image in S.W. Ohio?

 

If HUD were to allow a reduction of 1,000+ S8 vouchers, what would be the impact on the housing market in Ward 2 and parts of Ward 1.  With the reduction of vouchers, is it true that current montly market rents for non-subsidized properties are significantly less?  Where will the up to 1,000 new renter households come from?  How will the reduction of S8 units adversely impact residential property owners?

 

The majority of S8 vouchers added took place (for the most part) prior to the hiring of Marty Kohler.  You should speak with Neal Barille and Angela Tucker about that.  However, as recently as 2006, Mr. Kohler bragged about the benefits of S8 insofar as rental property reinvestment was concerned.

 

The damage is now done and I have no issue with reducing some of the vouchers.  What I do not agree with is the lack of a cost-effective strategy to reclaim our declining neighborhoods.  The wrecking ball alone is hardly a comprehensive plan of attack.  It is true that quite a few structures warrant demolition.  However, surely there must be a more logical approach to accomplishing this goal.  Tear it down and they will come is not the answer.

The current strain on schools, public safety and the retail business sector has taken a toll that will take a generation to repair(if we ever get started). What we offer now as a community is probably not going to bring new contributing families here, and actually may cause them to look elsewhere with more comfortable demographics.

A small splatter of an art district and a couple of decent restaurants is not going to do it either.

Trying to force development with continual subsidies hasn't worked either.

The only way to make this community attractive  and successful again is by changing the demographics imo.

The beginning work will be ugly, but necessary.

Tough luck for the landlords, but they have milked the govt. dole long enough, at our expense.

I am definitely open to a better solution--just lay it out for me.

 

As you know, Mr. Akins had over $3 Million in two separate NSP allocations at his disposal.  Despite the fact that he wasted up to $75,000 per individual housing acquisition/rehabilitation project, whatever happened to the funds that were netted from eventual sale of these frivolous undertakings?  How much funding is involved?  Were these funds diverted to "downtown" projects like the acquisition of the asbestos-laden movie theater on Central Avenue?  Or, is he using these taxpayers dollars on more property demolition?  What is going on?

No update since 2013

Over six months later, are there any new developments to report on the vacant, blighted and decaying Rose Furniture property?

Who else beside the 3-4 names that have been mentioned here on the forum are interested in revitalizing downtown and have cash to pay to rebuild/repair these buildings and put them back in use?

Are we talking another 3-4 people, 25-50 people or more?  I am curious as to how many contractors/investors out there are interested.

Bob

You answered the question I was eventually getting to and that is - there's not but a couple of folks willing to put money in downtown - and it should just be left to implode.

I'm not in favor of monies going downtown (and I'm on record for that) unless it is private money.

The real money is going elsewhere.  There's a reason.  

Bob

Well said,  I also have the same opinion.