I am writing to explain my concerns related to the Elm Street building demolition plans. The article in Friday’s paper briefly mentioned that I had issues with it, but it didn’t get into details. It also contained an insulting comment from the mayor: “Thankfully, the rest of the council did the right thing.”
The right thing would have been for the city to take care of the building it owns before it reached the point of no-return, or to budget money for the demolition as part of the annual budgeting process. The right thing to do relative to the private property is to cooperatively negotiate a plan with the owner, or to take it by eminent domain at fair market value. An “emergency” demolition order or threat is not the right thing.
As part of the discussion Thursday night, I commented that I had no problem with the city demolishing an unsafe building that the city owned, but that I did have a problem with them threatening to demolish a private property. For some background… this property has been an eyesore for years. Everyone knows that. There are a few reasons why the site is in such a state of disrepair: the previous owner could not find tenants that would pay enough rent for him to afford the operating costs and upkeep; the site is polluted and requires a major investment to clean it up to today’s standards; and, the public infrastructure (water, sewer, parking, etc…) in the area is inadequate for a major development project.
The new owners, a bank, have not been able to sell the building or justify the expense of cleanup and revitalization based on the demand, or lack of demand, for properties in downtown. The city has expressed an interest in acquiring this property so that it can include that property in its plans to build an inter-modal bus station. Without going into details of the negotiation (which are probably protected under state laws), let me just say that negotiations are not going the way the city wants right now. Now, miraculously, after months or years of the building being in this condition, the city needed an emergency order to force the owner to develop an acceptable plan by noon-time Friday. If they did not receive such a plan, the city asked the City Council to approve funds that would enable the city to take action to “protect the public”, which could include the demolition of the private property.
As part of my questioning of Mr. Daley and Mr. Flagg, I mentioned that I’ve seen lots of construction sites and rehabilitation projects in downtown Boston, and that, based on what I’ve seen happen there, that a safety fence could be put up to protect the public while the owner did what was necessary to the building. I asked them if that would be adequate, and didn’t get a good answer. So I asked “who determines that the plan is adequate?” and “is there an appeal process for the bank (before the building is destroyed) if the plan is deemed unacceptable?” Their answer was non-committal and could be summarized as “we’ll do what we need to do to protect the public”. In the same conversation, they said that they had already contacted a demolition company and received a quote to do the work, and that the contractor was prepared to begin
immediately (as soon as they got a contract from the Purchasing Department). I took these responses and the discussion in general as a signal of a “pre-determined outcome”.
I don’t think this is fair to the property owner. If the true cost of cleanup is only $25,000, as mentioned by Mr. Daley, it seems to me that the bank could afford to do that if they wanted and could then sell or develop the property. Maybe they are working on plans to open a new bank branch in Westfield? Maybe they think the property has great value because it fronts a main road in downtown Westfield? Maybe they are holding out on doing anything until all the dust settles in downtown? Maybe they are waiting for their own experts to come up with an environmental report or plan of action? Maybe they are holding out for a fair market eminent domain taking by the city? Maybe they think the value is much higher than the assessment based on the fact that it’s a key piece of property in the plan for the bus station? These are all legitimate questions.
The thing I think is unfair is the city seemingly using “public safety” and the veiled threat of demolition to force the bank to come up with an “acceptable” plan in less than 24 hours. I also think that such action could expose the city to a major lawsuit. For these reasons, I voted against funding the money. If we received individual requests for each building, I would have voted for spending the money to demolish the city-owned building.
Dave Flaherty
City Councilor
