DIDA's First Blueprint Attempts Need to Be Window Dressing
EDITORIAL - by Jim Albert - Saturday, July 04, 2009 - On Thursday, July 02, 2009, the Downtown Ironwood Development Authority (DIDA) held a special meeting to consider a "joint effort" to raze the Sharon's/Power's Place building at 115 East Aurora Street. According to the plan, the DIDA would contribute up to $5,000 -- it's entire fund balance; the County would contribute $3,600; and the City would match the DIDA's contribution to demolish the main street structure.
The Sharon's building is in dire condition. The building has been exposed to the elements for many years. There are gaping holes in the roof; the foundation is crumbling; and the interior walls, floor and ceiling are covered with mold, mildew, other filth. Any rational person would agree that the building needs to be torn down, however, the scheme proposed before the DIDA on Thursday is a very poor solution to the problem and it does not follow the recommendations of the newly recently established Blueprint Plan.
Earlier this year, the City of Ironwood paid consultants Doyle Hyett and Dolores Palma $15,000 to establish an Ironwood Downtown Blueprint Plan for 2009. Several DIDA members and local business people -- including myself -- initially opposed the "investment" for the very reasons Hyett-Palma criticized the City in the finished plan:
"Some locally would claim that 'we (community members) have the answers and 'know what needs to be done' to move Downtown forward. This is largely true since a plan was completed for Downtown in 1981, that plan was updated by the DIDA in 1991, and now this Downtown Blueprint recommends the course of action that should be implemented in Downtown over the next five-years."
Why waste money paying for expert advice only to ignore it or put it on a shelf? DIDA Chairman George Goerig admitted he didn't even read the new Blueprint Plan. Judging by the most recent actions of the DIDA, I have to question whether or not other members have failed to examine the plan as well. From the very beginning, Authority member Eva Smith-Furgason has urged the Authority to go over the document, line-by-line, to insure that everybody on the DIDA fully understands it. Each and every time Smith-Furgason suggests methotically studying the document, Vice-Chairman Joe Karius rolls his eyes and throws down his pen; Louise Demasi sighs, begins to argue and ends up telling Smith-Furgason to shut up; and Chairman Goerig puts an end to the conversation by claiming Eva is out of order.
The Blueprint Plan suggests that, "The 'answers' are in place. Now it's time for the community to:
If this is how the DIDA initiates the plan, it is doomed for failure. Oddly enough, the only members who seem to have studied the plan and who are making an effort to follow it, are the three members who initially opposed investing in the Blueprint plan.
Doyle Hyett, in his presentation of the Blueprint at GCC, made it clear that he fully understood that funding -- especially in this difficult economy -- would be a major hurdle in the implementation of the program. Considering that fact, he suggested that the DIDA and the Process Committee focus on low- or no-cost improvements in the beginning. He suggested coercing Jacquarts to make banners at cost, for example, and he suggested that the City approach other businesses to donate to the cause until funding can be obtained. The Blueprint plan echos his suggestions:
"There is some concern locally about lack of funding to implement needed actions in Downtown. It has been found that, in Downtown enhancement, success breeds support. This means that those involved in the Downtown effort, must:
Spending the DIDA's entire fund balance and nearly half of it's entire yearly budget tearing down someone else's building is not what the Blueprint advocates. And will having another vacant lot show enough positive result to "wow" potential funders into investing in Downtown Ironwood?
In case you think you might have misread the previous paragraph I'll repeat myself. That's right, the according the scheme proposed to the DIDA, the DIDA, the City, and the County would all "chip in" to demolish a building that is on County-controlled, State-owned land. In August the property will be put up for auction for unpaid property taxes.
At Thursday's meeting, both Steve Frank and Eva Smith-Furgason opposed the scheme because it essentially bankrupts the DIDA's fund balance; wastes City taxpayer dollars; and the neither the DIDA nor the City would own the property after the building is razed.
Each and every year, tax foreclosed properties are auctioned by the County. First they are listed online (either on eBay or on other similar sites) and out-of-town speculators buy the properties "site unseen" hoping to quickly flip them (sell them at a profit). Once the investors see the condition of the severely blighted buildings they often abandon them; they don't pay the taxes; and the cycle continues.
Frank wants to initiate measures that would break that cycle throughout the City. Gogebic County has already agreed not to post the Sharon's building online prior to the August auction. That essentially reduces the possibility that anyone would purchase the property "site unseen." The minimum bid for properties during the first auction is equal to the amount of real estate tax owned on each parcel. That means the minimum bid for Sharon's building is $6,100. If the parcel doesn't sell at the first auction, a second "no minimum" auction is held in the fall.
Frank said if the building is sold at the August auction, the City needs to aggressively cite the purchaser of the property for code violations. Each and every violation should carry a steep fine and the new owner should be given 30 days to correct each and every violation. If the purchaser fails to comply, increase the fines or give the owner the option to sign the building over to the City.
If the building isn't sold at the first auction, Frank believes the City should aggressively bid on the property at the second auction. Considering there is no minimum bid at the second auction, chances are pretty good that the City will be able to purchase the property for very little money -- especially if people realize that purchasing a blighted building in Ironwood makes the new owner responsible for correcting any code violations.
Frank, being a realist, understands that the City has a lot of work to do to make the Blueprint work, and he agrees that doing low- and no-cost improvements are the right approach to take. He believes that it is entirely possible for the DIDA to obtain control over the Sharon's building, but demolishing the building is something the needs to be done at a later time, when funding becomes available. The slideshow above shows how the outward appearance of the Sharon's building could be greatly improved with very little expense. A coat of paint; some window tinting; and some hanging flower baskets could drastically improve the front facade of the building.
The picture above shows the lot created when the City razed the old Dalton Hotel (Al's Barber Shop). In this instance, there was a huge improvement. The Dalton was a run-down shack, and the sides of both of the surrounding buildings were in good shape. Keep in mind that Sharon's building shares a common wall with Mattson's. The west wall of Mattson's will need to have extensive work done to it in order to make it look presentable. In addition, while the lot above has a nice clean building as a backdrop to the lot, what "alley gems" will be exposed by tearing down Sharon's?
According to the Blueprint Plan, the DIDA needs to be most concerned about outward appearances at this time. Major structural issues, can be addressed once funding is available.
In order to get the funding, the Blueprint suggests that the DIDA begin with a target block on East Aurora Street from Lowell to Suffolk. It recommends first making inexpensive changes that show effort and desire for improvement to the target block. It then advocates expanding the efforts, once funding is availabe to a the seven block focus area -- Aurora, from Lawrence to Norfolk and Suffolk from Frederick to McLeod, including the Depot Park and the Post Office.
How about this one? Is this an eyesore? Should we spend even more money to tear it down, even though we don't own it? It's vacant, and it's on the core block!
The Blueprint Plan advocates "creating a critcal mass of visible improvements in as short a timefram as possible -- and then extend the enhancement effort to the remainder of the Downtown area.
How about this one?
This building which was once beautiful has had significant water damage. Look how many vacant spaces here! It's also on the core block.
This building has been vacant for years. It has a number of code violations. The electrical service is scary! Does it look any worse than Sharon's? Should we waste taxpayer dollars to tear this one down too?
This building houses an operational business! Why don't we spend more money -- tear this one down too!
The Rainbow Bar was open to the elements for months. Inside it is almost as bad as Sharon's. But what shopper visiting Downtown Ironwood would ever know what it's like on the inside?
The point I'm trying to make is that the initial goal of the Blueprint plan is to dress up our core block. We want to make it look like a movie set! We want it to "appear" to be a quaint little shopping center. Once the City shows MSHDA and the MEDC that we are capable of carrying out the plan, funding will become available to make serious changes that will lead to business development in the City's Downtown.
Steve Frank and Eva Smith-Furgason are two Authority members who strongly oppose wasting tax dollars ripping down Sharon's without owning the property. Once the City has control of the property, razing the building makes sense.
Measures need to be put into place that prevent out-of-town speculators from purchasing blighted properties in Ironwood only to let them go back for taxes a few years later. Former DIDA member Wayne Ozark has, for years, advocated implementation of a strict Code Enforcement plan that would require inspection of all transferred property. Anyone purchasing a structure in Ironwood would be given 30-days to bring that structure up to code. All buildings would have to be weather-tight; structurally sound; have adequate water supply and waste lines; have safe, up-to-date electrical service; be checked for mold, mildew; and Radon; be equipped with smoke and CO detectors; have appropriate fire extinguishers, etc. Failure to do so would result in fines for each violation.
The DIDA and the City don't have the funds to implement the Blueprint plan. Officials from MSHDA and the MEDC have indicated, however, that funding will be available in the future if the core block focus plan is followed. In order to follow the plan you have to read the plan! It appears to me that several of the DIDA members have never read the plan. If they have, and they support wasting taxpayer dollars on this ridiculous scheme to tear down Sharon's, then they should resign because they are incapable of following simple directions.