City of Somerville wants $138K from 240 Elm St. landlord before bfresh grocery can open

[ron_newman]

from Wicked Local/Somerville Journal:
Somerville officials demand $138K in labor costs after collapse before grocery moves into 240 Elm St

mayoral spokeswoman Jackie Rossetti told the Journal officials have sent Argiros numerous other invoices seeking an additional $138,044.14 for city-labor related expenses surrounding the building between July 22, 2015 and March 3. She said city officials will hold the building’s certificate of occupancy until they receive the payment.
Work cited in the invoices include fire and police detail, DPW labor, material, and overtime costs, inspectional services overtime, and traffic and parking meter and overtime expenses, with traffic and parking payments alone costing more than $75,000.

Comments

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

obligatory this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things statement.

hopefully they will pay and things can move forward.

[pywaket.livejournal.com]

Yup. I don't understand why the city has to be so dickish about this. It's no wonder we keep losing businesses in that spot.

Not that I have any great love for commercial landlords in Davis Square, but it's easy to see why the owner of this building would be all "screw it, what's the point in maintaining this building?" The city collects pretty high property taxes, based on how "valuable" this location is, and then makes it hard for any business to move in there and actually pay the rent that supposedly makes it so valuable.

I'm not even convinced that the city should be allowed to pull this kind of thing, where they say "you gotta pay more". You pay taxes, and you get city services. Unless there's some egregious violation of the law, making someone pay more doesn't seem right. If you have violated the law, then, that's what fines (spelled out in the city bylaws ahead of time, so everyone knows what the rules are, beforehand) are for. Sometimes you pay more in taxes than you get in services, and sometimes you pay less. That's just the way it works. Waiting until the last minute and telling the property owner "pony up another $138K or we're going to sabotage your deal", seems really, really scummy.

ETA: maybe I should send the city a bill for the "labor", and the cost of the snowblower I bought in frustration after I dutifully shoveled the 6 inches of snow off of our sidewalk, only to have a city plow come by 2 times in the next 6 hours, going 30 miles an hour and throw 8-10 inches of dense, slushy crap onto it, that I then had to go shovel yet again. I'm not joking about the 30MPH, either - I literally had to leap out of the way when they did it the first time, convinced I was going to get run down.

[teko.livejournal.com]

Not disagreeing with you, but just so the facts are out there: the city sent repeated notices to the owner during the five years that the building was vacant, ordering him to fix it up, giving him multiple deadlines for doing so, and voicing their warnings that the building was in terrible shape. When the façade crumbled & the building inspector saw that the front-facing wall was about to fall over, the city closed Elm entirely and had emergency crews helping to prevent the disaster. That, and the months of hassle afterwards, are what they're charging him for: labor costs incurred because he ignored the city's orders to shore up his building for five years.

[emcicle.livejournal.com]

yes, to be sure, i meant the reason we can't have nice things in this case is the building owner, not the city. i do think the city should be paid for the extra services they provided that were directly related to the building not being properly maintained, and then taking much longer than expected to repair. Someone should pay for it, and i think the building owner should be that person. Given that the building owner hasn't been motivated to do much so far, i'm not hopeful that he will do it, though.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

In this case I'd be all for seizing the land under eminent domain. Under Kelo, even, unless state law has ruled that out. Five years vacancy in Davis Square is tres ridiculous.

[keithn.livejournal.com]

Blame the city on that one. The owner tried to fill the building a few times but the city decided it would only let him open a fresh locally grown produce grocery store in that location. The owner found one (Roche Bros) but they pulled out for still unknown reasons. It turns out that while the city can dictate to a building owner what permits they will give him or her, a building owner cannot dictate to a business of the mandated type that they must move in.

You could make a decent argument that the city should pay him for lost income on the building. Maybe they both should call it a wash and stop being foolish.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I'd forgotten my disgust at the city's micromanagement of new business uses.

[serious-noir.livejournal.com]

I've wondered if the landlord had to pay anything to Dunkin' Donuts for loss of business, etc. over the 6 (?) months it has been closed. Or maybe that would be covered by the landlord's insurance?

[pywaket.livejournal.com]

I've only seen a few commercial leases, but the ones I have read do usually say that the property owner is not liable for "loss of business". The owner of the business can buy insurance for this, but the landlord is typically protected by the lease terms. Of course, if there's gross negligence on the part of the landlord, court is always an option for the business owner.

It was fairly common knowledge that this building wasn't in the best of condition, but I don't think anyone foresaw chunks of the facade coming off and falling on the sidewalk.

[jeff markwardt (from livejournal.com)]

The fact that we're getting what appears to be a decent, legit grocery store is a godsend in what is a food desert area amidst a plethora of "food markets" with soda, chips, and lottery tickets. To the city: Make this happen. Compromise. Having access to decent whole foods should be a city service.

[ron_newman]

I agree with your basic point, but the only "food markets" I can think of around here are Pemberton Farms and Dave's Fresh Pasta, neither of which fits your description. Am I missing some others? (For this purpose, I don't think either of us are counting Star Market as being in our area.)

EDIT: As teko demonstrated below, I forgot both of the nearby Indian markets.

[jesseh.livejournal.com]

Your soda and chips stores include Tedeschi's and the dollar store, but I wish you wouldn't devalue the term "food desert." There's a ton of places to buy good food within a mile of Davis Square.

[teko.livejournal.com]

I am very much looking forward to having a full-fledged grocery store in the square, but I'd never consider the area a "food desert area". Right across from where the new store will be is McKinnon's, a much beloved deli with inexpensive meat, prepared foods, fresh produce, and dairy. Dave's Fresh Pasta is right in the square, with specialty foods of all sorts. A five minute walk from the square will get you to Nimah Market, Food Land and Pemberton Farms. It's not at all hard to find decent whole foods in the Davis Square area.