At tonight’s City Council meeting, Mayor James Garner announced that as of 3:30 p.m. Thursday, Building Commissioner Paul Roberts has resigned, and City Hall is searching for a new person for the job.
The Mayor produced a box filled with files on properties with structures suitable for demolition, and added that beginning next Tuesday, a task force composed of representatives of the fire and police departments, the ordinance enforcement officer, the city attorney, the city operations chief and a representative of the building department would begin running down the files.
Before we get too excited at this welcomed flurry of activity, it must be noted that Mayor Garner also conceded that the fund for demolitions is $65,000 in the hole and will need an infusion of money.
During public speaking time, Mrs. Anna Schmidt made a good presentation on the topic, calling for the council to make a resolution and suggesting that the money come from Riverboat funds. It also would appear that past administrations did not do a stellar job of recouping demolition costs, and Councilman Larry Kochert suggested examining past records for chances of remuneration.
So it was that the evening’s central theme was demolishing decrepit buildings, and while this is a start, it is just one plank in what needs to be a platform of comprehensive attention to the city’s housing stock through aggressiveness on the part of the building department, the implementation of rental property inspections, and the establishment of a city court.
Of course, New Albany can’t be rebuilt in a day. Any action is good action at this stage of the game.
The other noteworthy drama of the evening occurred when the once proud Brent Jacobs of the McCartin Company mounted the podium to carry The Gary’s lunch with respect to the proposed commercial development at the corner of Green Valley Road and Daisy Lane, a reconfigured idea that was given an unfavorable recommendation by the Plan Commission.
In a room oozing hostility, Brent offered a bizarre, disjointed soliloquy on the nature of The Gary’s fabled largesse, turning to the assistance of two architectural suits for a gushing depiction of perhaps the best planned commercial development ever, all of which made the Wizard of Westside’s subsequently groveling praise for the excellence of the presentation all the more sycophantic.
But even CM Coffey joined the unanimous vote against the zooming change. Was Brent leveling with us when he said that if rejected, his company would be “done” with it? Only The Gary knows for sure.
My, my, my. Mr. Roberts resigned. Well, if you can't take the heat . . .
ReplyDeleteUntil the city starts handing out those citations, I'm remaining a skeptic. They can haul out all the boxes of files they want down at City Hall, but I want to see inspectors pounding the pavement and writing up tickets.
You and me both.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy that the topic of bulldozers was broached, but I'm wary that an occasional demolition will be cited as proof that the system's finally working.
For safety reasons, yes, some need to come down, but another few hundred need to be inspected and brought into line, hence the citations of which you speak.
That's not as glamorous, is it?
Did I hear that right last night?
ReplyDeleteDid CM Schmidt second the introduction of the resolution for Daisy Lane, LLC?
I am most assured that the CM was not in favor of this project, so why the second?
The motion would have died with out a second, or at least that is what the version RRO says that I have. There would not have been a vote taken. If one seconds a motion, it would be assumed that they are in favor of that motion. Don’t get me wrong, I am not hammering CM Schmidt, what I am after is the fact that you don’t have second every motion that comes down the pike. Last nights victory of defeat could have been simply let the motion die from lack of second.
I to applaud Mrs. Schmidts stance on the enforcement of demolition of property that can no longer safely house families. The sad part is that the demolition fund is 65K in the red right off the get-go! One of the few good things the Overton administration did was remove condemned structures; to bad they were not able to get the property owners to reimburse the city for the services. Again, and I know this has been asked a million times, but can’t the city put a lien on the property? Or add it to the taxes?
It seems everyone you talk to has an opinion about this matter, but no one seems to know the law! If I had a dollar for every version of this law, I could buy a Whitecastle and coke.
But that’s just my opinion.