Her3 I Go There I Go Again

There'due south nothing that fans flames between the executive and legislative branches so consistently in Butte-Silverish Bow as the proposed demolitions of old buildings in Uptown Butte.

If they get to the Council of Commissioners level, as another one rides now, things almost always get heated and messy and loud.

Citizens who want to save the buildings — many preservationists at heart or by profession — turn out and get more vocal. They see most Uptown buildings as living testaments to Butte'south history and fabric that must exist protected, ofttimes at all cost.

Those in the executive branch — chief executives, planning and edifice officials, community enrichment and public works directors — say some buildings are in such bad shape, they should or have to come down. Information technology'due south most public prophylactic and they're merely trying to enforce local laws that commissioners enacted.

Butte Rescue Mission thrift store — The Rescue Mission Bargain Center, of of 3 buildings on East Park St. slated for demolition just delayed by commissioners, has already closed its doors.

Enter the 12 commissioners with their ain means of seeing things. Some are large on preservation, some aren't, some trust or become along amend with the administration than others. Even that can depend on the problems or personalities involved.

All of those collide in debates about old buildings in Butte. Commissioners become snappy and snarky with each other and with canton officials and vice versa. Decorum doesn't disappear, simply it slips.

In every swirl there are claims the county's ordinances and procedures are broken or were skirted, that things moved too fast and decisions were made in surreptitious. And there are ever exasperations of "Here we are again."

But passions on this upshot run high in Butte and it seems that no matter how the ordinances are written or re-written, there will ever be people who fight for buildings, those who don't and those in the middle.

And the clashes between the executive and legislative branches at all levels of American government are as onetime as the documents that set them upwards.

Decisions still accept to be made on these building, only peradventure "Here we go again" is only inevitable.

THE Case AT HAND

Here are the basics of the latest episode.

In March 2019 — more iii years ago — county officials deemed an empty building at 135 E. Park St. as dangerous and did and then again in Nov 2019. The roof and 2nd floors had complanate and there were structural issues with the east wall.

The building is near the corner of Park and Arizona streets, tucked betwixt the Rescue Mission Bargain Center and a shorter, vacant building.

The county's Urban Revitalization Agency had previously tried to work with the building's owners, Silvery Bow Properties, to marketplace the building and talked with developers about trying to save it simply it wasn't financially viable.

Under a settlement the council canonical in Nov 2020, the county agreed to accept the building and Silvery Bow Backdrop agreed to pay $25,000 toward demolition costs. Information technology was either that, county officials said, or have the thing drag out even longer in courtroom.

The county had hired an engineer who determined 135 had to come downwardly and when prep work for demolition began, crews discovered that walls with an adjoining Butte Rescue Mission thrift shop building might have get merged over the years.

The canton hired Water and Environmental Technologies to take a closer look, and it recommended the county seek a full assay. So the county hired a structural engineer from Stahly Applied science in Helena.

That engineer adamant the walls were merged and it would have to be shored up and then 135 could be torn without dissentious the Mission thrift store, which is actually 2 buildings. A ball-park gauge put the price of that at $150,000.

Before proceeding at that toll, county officials said it made sense to take Stahly Engineering inspect the Mission thrift buildings, likewise. Information technology did and said they were unstable and unsafe and needed repairs if pursued would cost well over $200,000.

The nonprofit Mission couldn't beget that so the county offered to pay the Mission $38,572 for the parcels and upward to $12,000 in moving costs, so the canton would take all iii buildings, including 135, demolished.

The URA board agreed to foot that tab with tax dollars but the agreement with the Mission, which includes demolition, still needed council approval.

Before the first council meeting on the issue on Apr 6, the canton'south edifice official invoked a "public safety exclusion," which cites dangerous conditions and prevents such matters from being reviewed or delayed by the Celebrated Preservation Commission, or HPC.

After lengthy debates during ii council meetings, cipher has been decided. The council voted 6-5 on Apr 6 to delay activeness. At an April 13 meeting, the vote to delay was 10-ii. Information technology might be discussed again this coming Midweek.

Hither nosotros go once again.

SAVE THE BUILDINGS

At the start of the April xiii meeting, a dozen people — one after some other — took the microphone and made passionate pleas to spare the thrift buildings from demolition.

The dozen included one-time canton Historic Preservation Officer Mary McCormick, HPC board members Mitzi Rossillon and Bobbi Stauffer, and others who accept fought to relieve Uptown buildings.

Among other things, they said there were too many demolitions, the process had been rushed and old Uptown buildings were Butte'due south biggest tourism draw. They're increasingly attracting investors and new residents, also, they said.

Some questioned the engineering reports. Some disputed their findings outright. Some suggested there were better firms to exercise such evaluations. A few shots were taken at county officials for not understanding the importance of preservation in Butte.

"I look forward to the mean solar day that certain of our county officials who reject to larn and become with the program — I look forward to the twenty-four hours they retire and that some of the people in this room that accept come from other communities and empathize how important these buildings are will take those positions and salve our buildings," said Noorjahan Parwana.

Brian McGregor, who one time chained himself to the Greek Café in an unsuccessful attempt to relieve it, said he's been going to the thrift shop since he came to Butte 16 years ago and in that location was goose egg wrong with it.

When it came to demolitions in Butte, he said he didn't put any stock in engineering reports considering one used to justify the demise of the Brinck'south and Deluxe buildings on Front Street was wrong.

"I can only conclude that that was the desire and the intention in the first place was to tear those buildings down," McGregor said.

He as well thanked commissioners for listening to citizens.

"That doesn't seem similar such an odd affair but it is odd," he said. "I have non seen this so much earlier when it comes to this topic."

Nosotros'RE LISTENING

Later on county officials gave a brief summary of events that led to their proposed pact with the Mission and sabotage plans, the questions and comments started flying.

Commissioner Bill Andersen, directing his comments at Chief Executive J.P. Gallagher, Planning Managing director Dylan Pipinich and others in the executive branch, said nobody from the audience had spoken in favor of demolition.

Canton officials weren't his boss, he said.

"I'm answerable to these people out here in the audition, the people who live in District 10," he said. "All of us are answerable to these people, all of us elected officials, and I retrieve nosotros need to commencement looking at their wants."

Andersen was among commissioners suggesting county officials had played the "safety exclusion" card to bypass the HPC on a affair that was all near historic preservation.

Commissioner Dan Callahan suggested that too and said the ordinances were flawed and beingness abused. Just expect at the building at 135 East. Park, he said.

"Here we are two-and-a-half years after we declared that one dangerous and we're yet fighting to tear that one down," he said. "It's already been approved. How dangerous is a unsafe building?"

In the case of the austerity buildings, he said, the only thing citizens were asking for "is some time to let the procedure piece of work" so other options could be explored.

Commissioner Cindi Shaw said she didn't larn about the proposed Mission pact and demolition until a recent URA board meeting, even though the buildings are in her district and she is chairwoman of the council.

She said she had been through numerous demolition debates during her 16 years on council and they were always a "cluster" that resulted as well often in buildings being torn downwards.

The engineering written report on the austerity buildings stated it was based on visual observations and was express in scope, Shaw said, and options for repairing the buildings should exist pursued before a demolition determination is made.

Commissioner John Riordan said the process was broken merely the Mission was caught in the heart. He suggested the county pay Mission officials for the buildings, remove them from the equation, then "come up up with a positive procedure on these buildings."

Not SO FAST

This isn't the get-go demolition dispute for the county's executive branch, either, and so they came loaded with their ain points and counterpoints. At the Apr thirteen quango meeting, near were made by Pipinich (the planning director) and Canton Attorney Eileen Joyce.

Their overarching premise was this: There are local ordinances on the books, they were enacted by commissioners, they are understandable, and they must be followed equally stated unless and until they are changed.

"Nosotros have an obligation as the local government and the executive branch to enforce our ordinances," Joyce told commissioners.

Pipinich agreed with Callahan on 1 point, maxim information technology was unacceptable that 135 was notwithstanding standing.

"I retrieve we're rolling the die," Pipinich said. "The roof of that edifice is sitting in the basement and I recollect we're lucky that it (residue of the building) hasn't been downward yet. It could get at any time."

But the reason it was still standing, he said, was considering county officials had "gone above and beyond" in getting engineering science reports to brand audio determinations.

"When nosotros didn't get a consummate answer from the kickoff ane, we went to the second one and and then to the 3rd one and and then to the fourth one," he said, adding that no further review is needed.

The edifice was dangerous simply invoking the safety exclusion did not by itself mean sabotage. Repairs could be make, he and Joyce said, but the Mission couldn't afford them and so the county offered to assist.

Only Joyce said information technology was hard to justify spending $150,000 of taxpayer funds to shore up a wall so 1 unsafe building beyond repair could be torn while leaving the other 2 in an unsafe condition.

She reminded anybody of a vacant, four-story warehouse that complanate in 2014, spilling bricks and debris onto the street. Nobody was hurt just it later caught burn and after a 30-month legal boxing with its possessor, the county demolished the rest at a taxpayer cost of $283,000.

"I don't think everyone thought that edifice on Southward Wyoming Street was going to fall downwardly and i twenty-four hour period it did," she said.

Joyce said she took crime to suggestions the procedure had been used inappropriately and she and Pipinich said ordinances had been followed and no decisions were taken lightly.

Nothing had been rushed, Pipinich said. The decisions, including the public condom exclusion, were 2 years in the making and based on four reports from 3 unlike engineers.

"I'm telling you that our due diligence was washed and the letter of the law was followed and I can support that," Pipinich said.

STILL Up IN THE AIR

What happens next isn't clear.

Joyce did dominion out one option during the April thirteen coming together. She said the council could non unilaterally amend the proposed agreement with the Mission every bit Riordan suggested by like-minded to pay them simply leaving everything else undecided.

It was a written pact, or Memorandum of Understanding, between the county and the Mission so any changes would too demand an OK from the Mission, she said.

A new MOU with the Mission tin be drafted but information technology will still need council approving. Commissioners could also accept matters into their own hands and if enough concur, fix their own course, fifty-fifty if it ways enacting new ordinances.

That seems unlikely in the brusk run, but even if that is washed, would information technology really prevent another "cluster" the side by side time all this comes up?

moraleshoset1999.blogspot.com

Source: https://mtstandard.com/news/local/here-we-go-again-another-demolition-debate-erupts-in-butte/article_cba6e538-77ee-58fe-97ca-d1b2dce1a623.html