Officials question demolition choices

Some officials believe the city was shut out of a county demolition project for political reasons, while county officials say the city is protesting prematurely.

City Planning Director William Cowan sent a letter to county commissioners May 30 voicing his concerns about the Moving Ohio Forward grant program and a bid packet distributed by the county Development Department.

Cowan said he was not aware the final selection of properties slated for demolition had been made, learning "by chance" when Deputy Service-Safety Director Dan Galeoti informed him.

Galeoti, who owns a demolition company, received a packet offering his company the opportunity to bid on the demolition project, and the packet included a list of 44 properties.

Cowan asked for a packet and discovered no city properties were included on the list, nor were any properties in Salem, Wellsville, Salineville, Hanoverton and a few other communities, although each had submitted lists of properties they wanted to see demolished under the grant program.

Included in the bid packet, with the number of properties to be demolished, were Columbiana (3); Leetonia (4); Center Township (3); Liverpool Township (4); Middleton Township (6); Salem Township (1); East Palestine (4); Butler Township (5); Knox Township (1); Madison Township (5); Perry Township (3); and West Township (5).

Although concerned the city had not been included, Cowan said he is most concerned that those properties earmarked for demolition in the bid packet do not meet his interpretation of the program's intent.

"Being familiar with Moving Ohio guidelines, many of the properties that you have approved for demolition are far removed from the purpose of the program, and that is to rid neighborhoods of blighted abandoned residential properties caused by, or that were part of, the housing bubble collapse that occurred in 2007 and 2008," Cowan wrote.

After speaking with the Attorney General, Cowan said they concurred that the program's guidance documents are "vague and not specific enough to prohibit you from including seemingly ineligible structures in your demolition packet."

Nonetheless, he said those choices left him with unanswered questions, such as whether demolition orders been issued on the properties, whether volunteer demolition agreements had been signed for them, how the program was "sold" to those who did sign the agreements, and whether selection of properties was politically motivated.

Go here to see the original:
Officials question demolition choices