Once again the city government that wants out of the real estate business wants to buy more real estate. How can a council that can’t afford to repair the dangerous pavers around the city building even consider buying another property to tear down? If the bar is so dangerous and such a problem, why is it still operating?

“In the past several months alone, there have been numerous calls for service including but not limited to: felonious assaults, shots fired, public disturbance, weapons complaints, assault, and violation of liquor laws. Due to the violation of liquor laws and numerous other incidents, police met with the operators of the bar and attempted to get them into compliance with local and state laws to no avail.” Who does this owner know in the city building to still be operating under these violations? He must be a friend of council to get bought out instead of shut down. If this bar was shut down by the city and kept shut down there would be no reason for the city to buy the property and the bear the cost of tear down or upkeep. If the owner was responsible for paying taxes on and maintaining a property that he could not operate he would abandon the property or keep up appearances. Remember that if the city tears it down then they must keep it mowed forever, since the city would not allow it to be used for any purpose.

“$35,000 of federal CDBG funds plus the cost of demolition. A rough estimate to demolish the property would be an additional $8,000 - $15,000. Again that is only a guess. It will depend on what environmental/asbestos factors are found after those surveys are completed and the number of contractors bidding on the job.” Once again our government is going to use “CDBG money” for demolition rather than bringing in jobs and/or tax payers.  

Here’s another “problem bar” which should be declared a nuisance (by city ordinance) and closed permanently. But instead it might be the next candidate for another of council’s emergency legislation to illegally acquire it with HUD funds, thereby relieving the owner of any culpability or financial burden. Jimmy Cunningham said “the city is looking at its options in stopping the illegal activity.” Why wasn’t the bar closed in November when the double shooting occurred in the parking lot? Or in August or June when there were overdoses and shots fired?

Journal News E-news afternoon update

1 person hit by gunfire in Middletown bar parking lot

By Lauren Pack - Staff Writer

Updated: 4:48 p.m. Monday, September 04, 2017 |  Posted: 4:45 p.m. Monday, September 04, 2017

MIDDLETOWN —

Middletown police say one person as well as several cars and a house were hit by gunfire late Saturday outside a Crawford Street bar. Multiple shots rang out outside the Third Base Cafe, 911 Crawford St., after a fight in the bar, according to Middletown Police Lt. Jimmy Cunningham. Officers were called to the bar at about 11:40 p.m. for reports of shots fired. Nine casings were found outside the bar and police were told one man was shot. “The information we have is he ran out the back door,” Cunningham said of the man who was allegedly shot. Detectives have been unable to find the shooting victim, he said. “One house was hit and two or three cars,” Cunningham said. “One (shot) landed near a parent and child.”

Officers have been called to the bar 32 times in the past six months, according to police, who say most recently there were overdose and shots fired calls in August and June. .Last November, a double shooting occurred in the parking lot. “The neighborhood has had it with the violence and so have we,” Cunningham told this news outlet today, noting the city is looking at its options in stopping the illegal activity. “It used to be a working man’s bar, but now it is a place where drug dealers come to,” Cunningham said.

Officers remained at the scene until early Sunday. Cunningham said bar owners, who were out of town, were unable to respond to access the security video to help in the investigation.Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call detectives at 513-425-7700.

The legislation to purchase Boca-Bar was passed under what might be false pretenses concerning the supposed blighted condition of the building. The real problem was the business not the building its self. Adkins has successfully gone under the radar again.

Cunningham’s “testimony” that the building had a blocked in window in the front did not qualify the property as blighted. It appears there have been no work orders or issues about the condition of the building! BUT, in order to use CDBG funds to purchase it, the building had to be DECLARED blight (TRUE OR NOT) to comply with the rules. THEN, the CDBG rules also require that blight be removed, so the building has to be torn down unnecessarily in order to obtain CDBG funds. This may not be illegal but that doesn’t make it right. What will become of a lot that size? Will the city have to mow it forever or are there other plans for it?

Adkins has mastered all the ways and means of circumventing and bending rules and regulations. It is note worthy that this invariably occurs under “emergency legislation” so that no one has an opportunity to object or even ask a question before it’s a done deal. CDBG funds have been among the most frequent topics on council’s agenda for years. Have Council members ever made any effort to familiarize themselves with the important issue of CDBG rules and regulations in order to form their own opinion rather than take someone elses (Mr Adkins’) word for this or any other issue for that matter??

When a question is put to Mr Adkins, City Council Members, or any spokes person from the city’s bureaucracy, perhaps we should, for each occurrence or council meeting, require them to take the same oath to which a witness must swear in court, “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!!!!

After all, in council meetings they have essentially gagged and blindfolded the tax payer by ignoring the “sunshine law” and taking items into “executive session” that should be subject to public scrutiny. They double talk to government agencies and get “free money” which they can then redirect for their own purposes under any desired “emergency legislation.” Emergency legislation is the tool of choice from the bag of dirty tricks used to side step the sunshine law and citizen input.

Our “friendly” staff writer, Ed Richter’s front page article in the Sunday, 9/10/2017, Journal News, is headlined second only to the epic hurricane Irma. He has a prominent spot to essentially praise the city for their “solution” in dealing with a problem bar. The article attempts to explain how the city is doing “the right thing.” But if you read between the lines, you will see they are going about it the wrong way! Ed and City Hall have had a lot of practice at this.

Read the article and the comments inserted in red.

City will buy problem bar — and demolish it

Middletown will spend $35K in federal grant money to buy Bar Boca.

MIDDLETOWN — Middletown officials have come up with a solution in dealing with a bar that has become a neighborhood nuisance and a drain on public safety resources: Buy it, then demolish it. Middletown will spend $35,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant funds to purchase Bar Boca, 124 Charles St. Purchasing and demolishing the building will prevent it from being re-used as a bar, said City Manager Doug Adkins. “This building has no good use,” he said. A future use for the property has not yet been determined.

The city has said it wants out of the real estate business, right?

Middletown police Lt. Jimmy Cunningham, who negotiated the purchase deal with property owner Charles Napier, said the decision was “huge.”“We’re able to eliminate a problem and save the city thousands of dollars in the long run and save some lives,” he said. “The neighborhood signed petitions to get rid of the bar because of all the problems.”

There have been 80 calls for service to Bar Boca in the past eight months, according to Cunningham. He said since 2008, there have been 230 calls for service to that bar under different owners. He said in the past several months there have been numerous calls for felonious assaults, shots fired, public disturbance, weapons complaints, assault and violation of liquor laws.

The city has nuisance ordinance that are quite stringent, but were not used in this case of serious and numerous violations.

Cunningham said the costs to send police officers to the bar on a call for service or to investigate a crime at the bar takes away resources from the rest of the city. He said depending on the type of call, it could require multiple officers to respond. If there is an injury and medics are called, that only increases the costs in terms of personnel, vehicle and other costs.

“We’ve spent a substantial amount of money due to the existence of this bar,” he said. Due to the violation of liquor laws and numerous other incidents, Kyle Fuchs, community revitalization director, said police met with the operators of the bar and attempted to get them into compliance with local and state laws to no avail.

The “attempts” by the city and police and Fuchs to get the bar into compliance, involving a number of different bar businesses over an extended period of time certainly seems half-hearted. The city could have saved money by enforcing the law years ago.

As a result, the property owner agreed to sell the building to the city.

Sooo, the property owner is only too happy to have the city buy his property, be relieved of any financial responsibility and walk away with money in hand. How many other nuisance properties has the city purchased in this manner?

Cunningham said it’s difficult and costly for the city to build a solid nuisance case to close a bar because it takes a significant amount of time. The courts need an overwhelming amount of evidence before a judge will take away a person’s livelihood.

The city and the courts only had 9 years (since 2008, as stated above) to build a solid nuisance case. And 230 calls for service during that time was not overwhelming enough for the city to take action??? Why is the city buying and tearing down this building, (thus losing more tax base), when it should be the owner’s responsibility? Does there seem to be some special consideration here?

“We are delighted that things were able to be worked out the way they were,” said Joe Ruscigno, project director for M&J Hospitality, the company that owned the Bar Boca business. “We agree with the city.” Ruscigno added that there probably shouldn’t have been a liquor establishment located in the neighborhood.

Yes, wouldn’t you be delighted as the owner/operator of a nuisance bar business to leave with your liquor license intact and no fines levied? If Ruscigno thought this location was not appropriate for a bar, why was his business established there? Question: Isn’t there another bar nearby in that neighborhood?

“We’re all excited about it,” resident Ronnie Perkins said of the planned demolition. “We think it’s a great thing the city is buying it. Ever since they extended that bar, there have been problems.”Perkins, who has lived across the street from the bar for the past 26 years, went around the neighborhood getting residents to sign a petition for the city to take action.

Note that the word demolition is not part of the quotation of Mr Perkins. He only talks about the city’s purchase.

“I was here first,” he said. “I’m not leaving.”Perkins said he has cameras all around his home in case someone damages his property.“The other thing homeowners don’t know is that their property values have gone up without the bar,” he said. “Our homes are worth $5,000 to $10,000 more with the bar gone.”

A woman who lives on North Avenue near the bar said it was nice to sit out in her backyard at night again. The woman, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, said she hasn’t seen any needles or broken beer bottles in a nearby alley since the bar closed. “The prostitution has also slowed down big time,” she said.

The only upside to this action is …. that action was taken to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. It should have taken place years ago and not at the cost of the city (misuse of CDBG funds, IMO). Demolition has been the city’s solution to most problems presented and called it revitalization. What follows demolition is loss of property tax base and another maintenance problem which costs the city more money. Mr Adkins has repeatedly requested more funds to maintain “empty lots of revitalization” all over town.

Bar Boca marks the second time a bar in that location was shut down by the city.

Miller’s Lounge closed in 2014 after repeated nuisance violations, police said. Cunningham said before that, it was known as the Pinkk Panther bar. It has also been known as the Office Bar and Git R Done.

Last week’s vote on the Bar Boca purchase passed unanimously, with Councilman Steve Bohannon abstaining.

Council shoved this through on emergency legislation with Adkins’ prompting even though there was citizen protest and questions. No reason for Bohanon’s abstaining was given. Shouldn’t he have explained and does it have any bearing on reasons for the city to buy the bar?

Contact this reporter at

513-755-5067 or email

Ed.Richter@coxinc.com.