The gas station at 305 Main Street: should it stay or should it go? There’s been a lot of talk, and a lot of emotion concerning the issue. Some say the building is a worthless eyesore that should be torn down, while others believe it’s an architectural and historical treasure that is well worth saving. When City Council last took up the issue, it was really the bottom line—the cost of keeping it— that was the deciding factor.
Regardless of your gut reaction to “305,” one thing is for sure: there is not enough reliable, objective information on which to base make an informed, rational decision. Luckily, the City and the entire Geneva community can now get that information-- at no cost to the taxpayer, and in time to do the right thing, whatever that turns out to be.
The Preservation League of NYS recently named the building to it’s “Seven to Save” list. Their statewide panel of experts judged 305 to be historically and architecturally significant/unique. And they put their money where their mouth is. The League has funds available for a ‘soup to nuts’ assessment of the building performed by a professional with loads of experience. We’d get reliable cost estimates for a variety of options for the building, options that would keep the building standing for someone to fix up and use (including a non-exempt owner). But we can't access the money if we don't apply for it. And the May 1st deadline is rapidly approaching.
Last week, the City Manager, the Mayor, and three councilors followed up with representatives from the Preservation League. Our council has 9 members, so to avoid a quorum, no more than 4 could attend the meeting. Many councilors, especially our new members, were interested in receiving more information from the League about opportunities to fund studies of the building. Because Councilors Augustine and Capraro attended the morning long press conference and information session when the “Save” designation was announced, and because they were involved through 2006 in discussions of the project, they gave up their spots to allow as many people as possible to have access to the same information. For a glimpse at the very impressive press packet, containing information about the building's history and reuse potential, click here.
While there has been no further discussion among Councilors thus far, it was reported that the Executive Director of the Business Improvement District was on hand and private interest in the site was an anticipated topic of discussion. Councilor Augustine has direct knowledge of four such offers. There have been at least two additional inquiries made in the wake of the "Seven to Save" announcement.
The City Manager has asked the Mayor to produce a summary of that meeting. Much of that summary ought to focus on the City’s plans to proceed in getting reliable cost estimates for various options. The resolution to demolish the building was brought up at the end of a long meeting, just ‘to put the issue to rest.’ Due diligence on the true cost of saving the building vs. demolishing it was not done.
Whether you see the potential (and tax revenue) in that building, or you wish the wrecking ball had been called in yesterday, there is one thing we can all agree on: Matters of economic development are rarely cut and dry; they often take time to negotiate; and decisions made out of fear or frustration are never sound.
Only a comprehensive assessment of the site’s current condition and potential redevelopment, produced by someone with expertise in that line of work, will give us a clear option regarding reuse or demolition. We can no longer use the excuses of no time, no money to study the issue.
Tuesday, April 10
Putting the 305 Main Street Decision on a Solid Foundation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The following is inaccurate: "While there has been no further discussion among Councilors thus far, it is our understanding that the Executive Director of the Business Improvement District was on hand to report on the many inquiries that private developers have made about the site. Councilor Augustine has direct knowledge of four such offers. There have been at least two additional inquiries made."
As the Executive Director of Geneva BID, I was only able to attend the last half hour of the meeting referenced here. And I have had only 1 inquiry from a potential business which I am trying to recruit, but they are looking for something within the next 12 months that is in excellent condition. Councilor Augustine apparently knows of more interest than I do. I did not make any such statement at this meeting. I would respectfully ask Councilors Capraro and Augustine to please check a quote with me before they choose to attribute it to me and publish it, and/or cite the source, especially if your intent is full disclosure and honest fact-finding on this site. Thank you. Sincerely, Cara-Leigh Battaglia, Executive Director Geneva BID
In the meantime - Why can't we at least doctor up the eyesore. 1. Place a decorative fence in front of the property. 2. Straighten up the colums with temporary supports. 3.Remove the for sale sign backer on the front of the building. 4. Spraypaint the front of the building white.
If 305 Main St. is a viable building with potential for commercial use, why isn't anyone putting up the money to buy it, repair it and make money on it?
Why taxpayer money - - whether state or City? I am always taken aback when I hear people on the council talk about 'getting money from the state' - -like it's growing on trees in Albany and available for picking. Money coming from Albany - - comes from taxpayers like you and me.
When we received this comment we immediately amended the post because the original sentence (which appears in the comment) was vaguely worded and could be misinterpreted to attribute motivation to Cara Leigh that was not intended nor accurate. What we wished to convey is that Cara Leigh's invitation to the meeting was premised on the role BID would play in marketing the building if and when the building's fate is determined.
The current post accurately reflects the intention and we apologize for the confusion.
RMR-
A good point. However, the City has stated that no one (save a licensed asbestos abatement contractor) is allowed access to the site, including the building's outer perimeter.
LDavis-
You are right about the money issue (whether grant or loans) being taxpayer dollars. And taxpayer money will be spent on this site regardless of whether the building stays or goes. The City currently has two grant applications pending (one with the NYState DEC and one with the US EPA). Our position is that when taxpayer money *is* used, it should be used as a way of leveraging additional resources (like creating a taxable end use) if possible.
If this site is so dangerous that the city has deemed that only an abatement contractor can have any access either exterior or interior then the city is remiss in protecting our citizens from inadvertent access from either the front , back or sides of the property. The temporary barriers in place are not monitored nor do they prevent access. The property should be enclosed with rigid fencing to protect our citizens, children especially, from these immediate dangers and hazards that the city has deemed present at this location.
You raise an interesting point. It is our opinion that the current situation (with temporary barriers) is sufficient. While the City has a responsibility to prevent entry into the building, we are not aware of the presence of "immediate dangers and hazards" on the building's exterior that would warrant the type of fencing you reference. The city's asbestos report indicated positive findings in some wall plaster (interior) and flashing. The latter is not friable and therefore not an imminent hazard. We will try and post the report in the Document Library the near future.
Post a Comment