What on earth is going on down there?
Fair question. To say it's a delicate situation is an understatement. The area of the old NWSW mill along Wallace Street that contains deteriorating and half fallen down buildings is not owned by the City, and in fact, has an owner of record. Not being the owner presents its own challenges in cleaning up the property as you might imagine. We're doing what we can within our powers to hold the owners responsible. Keep reading to see how this becomes complex.
Two very large and credible demolition firms have evaluated the roughly 23 acres of property and determined that it will cost about $2million just to complete demolition of the area. The City does not have $2million at its disposal to finish the demolition even if it were to acquire the property.
Even after the $2million in demolition costs, we have a very rough estimate of $1million to $3million in environmental remediation. That's an estimated $3million to $5million to get the property restored to a developable or reusable area!
Why not write a grant or ask the state or the feds for money?
Believe me, we have. The IEPA and USEPA have been very good to work with and there is some money out there for environmental cleanup, though usually the money requires a match from the City. However, there is no money out there for demolition. We've asked every official we can and no one grants money for demolition. Trust me, if we could get the cash to demolish the structure, we'd likely be in the process, or at least in court getting the ball rolling for next spring. Once the demolition takes place, the time to start environmental cleanup work should be a much quicker process with the help of IEPA and USEPA.
Can't the City condemn the property or use eminent domain to take it over?
We could, but that leaves us with a court fight to gain control, which then makes us solely responsible for the demolition. Since the state and federal governments have indicated there is no money for demo work, that means local tax payers would shoulder the burden of the demo costs, which we see as highly unfair. Instead of burdening taxpayers with that costs, the City has been working to hold the owners responsible for the cleanup. That takes time, as unfortunate as that is.
If demolition is so expensive, couldn't we at least start doing it in small bits?
One would hope, but unfortunately, 1) it's not our property, it's still private property and 2) there are environmental concerns in the area that wouldn't allow a corps of volunteers to simply start hauling out debris from the site. Much of the rubble on site cannot be taken to a regular landfill.
So what can the City do?
The City has a few options, though some aren't as effective as we might like, but that's what our powers are limited to. For starters, the City has issued a number of nuisance violations in the area. On something of this scale, a nuisance violation isn't a huge incentive to get something done. We also have the ability to ask the courts to issue a demolition order. A demolition order from the court can require the owner to demolish their property, and if they choose not to, the City can demolish the property and put a lien on it. We've initiated this process and it is in the court system at this time. However, if they don't do the demolition, it's up to the City to do it, and again, the City does not have the $2million to front on the project. The City could put a lien on the property for the cost, but realistically, it would be years before the City could recover anything, and it would be a fraction of the cost we put into the property. Last, and our only reasonable option is to hold the owners' feet to the fire for the environmental concerns on the property, both those liabilities inherited through the purchase and the ones created since. It probably doesn't surprise you to hear that using the legal system and negotiation between attorneys to get somewhere takes time and needs to be deliberate, but we've indicated very recently that the clock is ticking and action needs to be taken asap.
In short, it's taken time to minimize the cost that will fall onto local taxpayers. It's not inaction on our part that's caused the property to sit untouched. Council members and staff members alike are terribly frustrated with the condition of the property. We'll keep the pedal to the metal down the legal avenue!
It's a short answer that tries to condense a couple years and a lot of complexity into a few paragraphs, but hopefully this provides a little insight into what the City is trying to accomplish and why we are or aren't doing some things with the property and why we can't turn it into an overnight success. We'll keep diligently plugging away at it until the property is cleaned up.
