There's been some hubbub about a pending city-ordered demolition in downtown East St. Louis. Maybe you've heard about it in the news. It was once, a long time ago, a nice, terracotta clad, building. Now it's a decrepit, caving in, mess. The city wants it down, and a St. Clair County judge agrees.

Nonetheless, local preservationists are upset about the demolition. And the "owner" is also upset.

An interesting tidbit came out in today's Post Dispatch about that "owner". A few years ago, she bought the building at a tax sale for $700, that's seven *HUNDRED* dollars. A mere pittance. And based on its current condition, apparently, she has done virtually nothing to stabilize or improve it. And now she's upset about a city/court ordered demolition? What a joke.

Sorry folks. I can't say I blame the judge or city of ESL in this case. I blame the negligent, speculator "owner".

We need to be more specific about where we lay blame, and in this case, squarely at the feet of the current "owner".

Northside Neighbor wrote:
We need to be more specific about where we lay blame, and in this case, squarely at the feet of the current "owner".

Did you miss this?
From here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 57ffa.html

She said she has submitted at least two plans for redeveloping the Murphy Building, complete with architectural renderings.

She also sought tax-increment financing for the job but that the city never responded.

City Manager Deletra Hudson has said that Williams’ plan was not “realistic.”

The way ESL distributes TIF funds, it's just a grant - not a leveraged investment. There is no private money required and from what I hear, their TIF well is dry.

And submitting a redevelopment plan without financing is no plan at all. Again, buying a building years ago for under a $1000 at a tax sale, letting it rot to the point of court ordered demolition, is not development. It's speculation.

The other thought I had on this is in terms of language. We often call interested parties in neighborhood revitalization "stakeholders". They are invested stakeholders in the process. Those stakeholders including area businesses, residents, government, anchor institutions, outside funders/foundations, developers and investors.

This woman and her $700 tax sale purchase of an historic ESL downtown building isn't a stakeholder. Most would put her in the class of other bottom fishing speculators - a hindrance to progress, not a leader/partner/supporter.

She deserves the same maligning so many others have given Paul McKee for his neglect of historic buildings.

Northside Neighbor wrote:The way ESL distributes TIF funds, it's just a grant - not a leveraged investment. There is no private money required and from what I hear, their TIF well is dry.

And submitting a redevelopment plan without financing is no plan at all. Again, buying a building years ago for under a $1000 at a tax sale, letting it rot to the point of court ordered demolition, is not development. It's speculation.

The other thought I had on this is in terms of language. We often call interested parties in neighborhood revitalization "stakeholders". They are invested stakeholders in the process. Those stakeholders including area businesses, residents, government, anchor institutions, outside funders/foundations, developers and investors.

This woman and her $700 tax sale purchase of an historic ESL downtown building isn't a stakeholder. Most would put her in the class of other bottom fishing speculators - a hindrance to progress, not a leader/partner/supporter.

She deserves the same maligning so many others have given Paul McKee for his neglect of historic buildings.

Something doesn't add up on this story. ^ As mentioned above Williams owns the building and says she submitted two different redevelopment plans. But on April 22, 2015 East St. Louis Purchasing Manager James Tyus said in the Belleville News-Democrat:

Last year East St. Louis requested purchase and redevelopment proposals for the site, but received none and decided to go the demolition route

^ Note the absense of the word "realistic" that was mentioned in the P-D. Don't know if that's a BND oversight or a different story from two different members of the ESL government.

And the city may be short on TIF money - or money in general - but note this in the original P-D story:

Hudson said the city was spending about $440,000 in tax increment financing funds to demolish the building.

Allen asserted that that amount would have covered stabilization work on the rear section.

And this:

Williams described the court order as only a "notice to respond" and said her efforts to communicate with the city have been stymied. She said she could repair the rear facade, which is visible to passing passengers on the region's MetroLink commuter trains, for half the amount being spent by the city on the tear down.

And the building has only been eligible for the pilot State Historic Tax Credit since September 2014, when it was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Why tear it down now, just eight months after additional funding was made available to save it?

-RBB

The biggest piece of information lacking from this story is any description of an interested user of this building if it were rehabbed. The vacancy rate in this section of ESL is sky high. Who's going to spend/lend many millions of dollars to rehabilitate a vacant, decrepit building in ESL with limited prospects of attracting a tenant?

ESL is littered with the remains of many failed development plans. The town's one Schnucks just closed in arguably its most vibrant retail area. It's a sad place with an extremely depressed market. Over at STL Today, one commenter defending the rehab of this building compared the downtown main street of ESL to Washington Avenue before the historic rehab boom.

That's a silly comparison. There's no comparison. None. For one thing, downtown St. Louis/Wash Ave was a statewide priority for Missouri. The state's flagship city/downtown couldn't be let rot to hell, and people at the state level got that. The Missouri state historic tax credit was created and largely responsible for the revitalization of dozens of historic downtown STL buildings. Those rehabbed buildings filled with residents and businesses. Downtown ESL has none of that sort of statewide mandate/priority for Illinois. ESL really is one of the poorest, worst off all American cities. Sometimes we locals have a hard time understanding just how bad it is.