274 replies to this topic

[mental757]

PROJO:  "Providence orders family to repair Grove Street school"

http://www.projo.com...16.37d04bc.html

[jencoleslaw]

The comments on that article, as per usual, are interesting to read.

[Pseudo_Work]

jencoleslaw, on Sep 21 2009, 09:59 AM, said:

The comments on that article, as per usual, are interesting to read.

I wish I could read them, except that apparently the BeloJo commentary only works with Internet Explorer.  As a Mac user (or so the tech people say) I can't read or make a single comment there, since Safari and Firefox are the only browsers I can use.  Hmm.

[Lone Ranger]

I'm on a Mac, and I can read them.  Using Safari.

And yeah, those comments stink ... of sour grapes.

[jencoleslaw]

i don't have any problem reading them on firefox...

[Pseudo_Work]

I don't know what to say, other than that I can't read commentary, leave commentary, or even login.  I've been pestering their tech support people for months, and nothing ever gets done.  So, no democratic voice for me.  Anyone care to post some of the better ones?

[Urbaner]

Pseudo_Work, on Sep 22 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

I don't know what to say, other than that I can't read commentary, leave commentary, or even login. I've been pestering their tech support people for months, and nothing ever gets done. So, no democratic voice for me. Anyone care to post some of the better ones?

Most Recent Comments: 8brick1972 23 hours ago wrote:
Isn't the whole issue the fact that the Tarros who are now whining about the repair cost allowed the building to fall into disrepair and *then* did illegal demolition to exacerbate the problem with no regard to the surrounding neighborhood? When purchased in 1993, it did not require $570K of repairs - they put it in that condition.

So if the ruling becomes that they can finish the demo because they illegally started it, what is next? We always say "well we will learn our lesson and approach this the right way the next time" but we NEVER do. So the basic lesson is, if you want to knock a building down, hire some shady construction company to show up in the middle of the night and do enough damage before the injuction comes down that you can claim the building is unrepairable. Nice. That's a way to run the city.
4 0
Urbaner 23 hours ago wrote:
So, if Federal Hill is a slum, how is an expanse of asphalt supposed to help improve the neighborhood? The Tarro's intentionally broke the law believing that they could get away with it, as have others. They shouldn't just be required to stabilize the building, but be forced to fully restore it. It seems that many are disappointed that Providence isn't as corrupt as it used to be and would prefer rewarding law breakers instead of punishing them.
4 0
posting_name 1 day ago wrote:

If the Historic District Commision wants it saved so badly they should buy it and fix it themselves. The Tarro's bought it with the intention of making it a parking lot. Obviously the previous owner had to have known that before selling? This smells really to me. Makes you wonder what the previous owner knew, or who he knew, that he didn't disclose to the Tarro's? That building inspector should also be investigated for gross incompetance along with the supreme court for kickbacks. The only smart person was Judge Procaccini for ruling they demo'd without a permit but the end result was a building that is now unsafe and needs to be raised.
1 6
Nova 2 days ago wrote:
That building is structurally unsound. No contractor in his right mind is going to risk the lives of his employees by having them attempt to work on a building in that condition because as soon as they do, it will begin to collapse even further. A building in that condition must be knocked down for the safety of all concerned. Maybe the City of Providence should hire a building inspector with not only greater engineering experience, but simple common sense. "Repair load-bearing walls?" Is the building inspector insane? Just look at the picture of that building.
2 5Nova 2 days ago wrote: It is becoming more apparent that the City of Providence has a personal vendetta against the Tarro family. The building is unreparable and unsafe. It needs to be knocked down. Leave the Tarro family alone. If the owners of that building were named Carpionato the building would have been demolished two years ago as the Farmers' Market was. Take care of the real issues Mayor Cicilline and City of Providence.


3 5
STEW GOTS 3 days ago wrote: So am I to understand you are equating the Grove Street School with the Pyramids, Pyramids, Parthenon, Chartres Cathedral, Abe Lincoln's log cabin and such. Let's we wait for the masses who long to visit the Grove Street School site.


2 6
Limp Wristed Liberal 3 days ago wrote:
To "I am the american": Your reasoning could also apply to the Pyramids, Parthenon, Chartres Cathedral, Abe Lincoln's log cabin, etc. Wise up.
8 4
I am the american 3 days ago wrote:
Why bother saving a building that is not needed for its intended use? It was a school, what can it be used for more apartments in that slum area? The city zoning board is a bunch of crooks.
3 9

[Pseudo_Work]

Ugh.

[09/21/38]

They should pay the fine for starting the demolition without the permit.  and the buidling should then be condemned by the city and put out to bid all over again.  If someone wants to rehab the building or wants the land they will have to be the highest bidder.

[runawayjim]

09/21/38, on Sep 23 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

They should pay the fine for starting the demolition without the permit.  and the buidling should then be condemned by the city and put out to bid all over again.  If someone wants to rehab the building or wants the land they will have to be the highest bidder.

So someone else should pay to fix what the Tarros ILLEGALLY broke while they just got a slap on the wrist? I think it's pretty fair to make them rehab the building so that it's structurally sound again. Then the city should seize the building.

[Pseudo_Work]

runawayjim, on Sep 23 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

So someone else should pay to fix what the Tarros ILLEGALLY broke while they just got a slap on the wrist? I think it's pretty fair to make them rehab the building so that it's structurally sound again. Then the city should seize the building.

Best idea yet.

[Cotuit]

Sigh.

The city shouldn't have to ever be in the position of seizing (i.e. paying for) a building they once owned. This was sold to the Tarro's in 1993 (!!). How are we ensuring that the city has learned a lesson here? When we sell our property, we need to have guarantees that the property will be used in a manner that is in the best interest of the city (i.e. not a f*cking surface parking lot). And if the entity does not develop the property competently and quickly, it should revert to the city, free and clear.

Public Safety Building Memorial Parking Lot, I'm looking at you!

[Pseudo_Work]

Cotuit, on Sep 25 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

Sigh.

The city shouldn't have to ever be in the position of seizing (i.e. paying for) a building they once owned. This was sold to the Tarro's in 1993 (!!). How are we ensuring that the city has learned a lesson here? When we sell our property, we need to have guarantees that the property will be used in a manner that is in the best interest of the city (i.e. not a f*cking surface parking lot). And if the entity does not develop the property competently and quickly, it should revert to the city, free and clear.

Public Safety Building Memorial Parking Lot, I'm looking at you!

The city has learned a lesson by being forced to buy back their own building, in a horrific state of disrepair, for much more money than they sold it for.  Either way, there seems to be no choice at this point.  If the city does not take it, it will be lost.  Period.  Even if the Tarros are made to repair the building, nothing suggests that they will be responsible with it beyond that.  They are determined to get their lot, and unless that property is taken from them, they will reach their goal, and everyone will ask why no one stopped it.  

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:  everyone in the universe was up in arms when the supreme court ruled in favor of the City of New London, allowing city government to seize property for private use, on the grounds that private use is public use if it generates tax revenue.  It was a scary decision, but nobody seems to realize its potential to do a lot of good.  Grove Street is a perfect example of that potential.  The ruling was designed to allow cities to rid themselves of irresponsible property ownership that costs the city huge amounts of money and respect.  Why haven't we used this yet?  It baffles me.

Edited by Pseudo_Work, 26 September 2009 - 10:26 AM.

[jencoleslaw]

The longer this goes on with no positive resolution, the greater the chances are some some court, somewhere will eventually say that the building is unsafe and needs to come down.

Or

The place will mysteriously burn down one night. Soon.   Do we really want to lose another building in order to "teach a lesson?" Honestly, we know that the city doesn't learn lessons, and neither do scofflaws, so the best possible outcome, in my opinion, is to move forward on the building without the Tarros.  I'm pretty sure the city can bill them for the remediation, not unlike what the city does when they clean a vacant and trash strewn lot--although, then they usually put a lien on the property so not sure that exact plan would work, but I'm pretty sure if you ask one of other OTHER city solicitors (other than michael tarro, that is) you might find a creative solution that saves the building and turns it back into a neighborhood asset before it disappears forever.

[jencoleslaw]

Yesterday was the most recent court date for this issue. Does anyone know what happened?