Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | Home RSS
 
 
 

Can court resolution fix building problems?

Ongoing case involving Tan-Fastic, Butler Institute heads toward Nov. trial

October 7, 2013

LISBON — Years of citations by the city of Salem and litigation in Columbiana County Common Pleas Court may come to an end regarding the deteriorating Tan-Fastic building falling onto the former......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(75)

questioner

Oct-09-13 5:03 PM

other buildings via shared basements.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 5:02 PM

Dunno for sure, but way way back I assume 1 person owned a block of property and built several buildings on it. Works okay if everyone in it is renting, not so easy when people have to buy.

On Broadway, 1 guy owned the property for the church, what had been Penneys or Sears (which became 2 businesses, the Friends Bookstore and Shepherd's Heart, now 1 business, Lion and Lamb), Goodwill, some other building behind them, etc. As a result, when he sold them, and not all at the same time, there were/are shared entrances, shared basements, an air conditioner on the roof of one for another building, shared parking areas, a shared elevator, an entrance to one business from another's upstairs, water drains from 1 roof to another, electrical/heat for 1 coming from another, etc.

So legally, kind of a disaster to sort out when the buildings were sold and even after.

A number of years ago, multiple buildings on State Street were broken into when the thief could get access into other buil

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:46 PM

Could be right .

Still for some reason that common wall is hanging out there .

When was the butler bldg. built and how was it connected to the other bldg. ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 4:40 PM

"City council members toured the Butler museum building earlier this week, seeing for themselves the damage caused. Salem Community Foundation President John Tonti said the tours came about after he and Council President Mickey Cope Weaver had a conversation at some recent function". "He(Tonti)recently secured a quote from a company to make some repairs". "He (Tonti) said he'll be talking to the insurance company about getting some work done".

"I want to see our building back in the position it was before so we can bring the Butler back to the community," Tonti said.

Sounds like ownership to me. If I call something "my" building...

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:36 PM

No matter who owns what I would think there'd be insurance companies involved here somewhere ??

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:32 PM

I'm sur there is a lot of influential in the foundation org.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:31 PM

Ownership ??

I think the Foundation was involved with funding the art inst,

But ownership again ????

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 4:27 PM

I know we say it's up to the courts now, and it is, but aren't a lot (a lot) of lawyers, judges, etc. part of the Salem Community Foundation? (The moneyed part of Salem)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 4:24 PM

Oops, I was replying to your first comment. :)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 4:23 PM

True. And I believe what the other bug (KsBug79) said is true too--things have been fixed in the past--partially, enough to meet the code, but not enough to prevent future problems.

But it's the Salem Community Foundation that put the Butler in the other side, so this is their building, their common wall. They are not lacking funds.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:23 PM

Don't know if that $225000 is including the city or not ???

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:21 PM

Because this has been left go I don't know if the city can be held liable also ??

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:19 PM

And for some reason the ARt Inst, doesn't think there's a common wall problem ????

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 4:17 PM

Again I agree.

If this had gone to litigation back yrs ago like it is now .

I think the situation would end up the same. Someone would investigate and find out about the common wall.

How ever the situation wouldn't be as dire .

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

questioner

Oct-09-13 4:11 PM

Ladybug, I think the common wall became a factor a couple years ago, when the Smiths were told it was a common wall. Prior to that, it wasn't realized.

If I was told my son threw a ball that damaged the driver's windshield of your car, I would hold him responsible to pay for damages to your car. But if the passenger side window was damaged and I was told the other neighbor boy did that, I would not want to pay for all the damages--I would maintain the other boy should pay his share for his side.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 3:41 PM

Now you have lawyer fees, Plus the cost of remedying the problem is gone way up

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 3:38 PM

Your right OK .

My only point again like watchdog also agrees it should have never reached this point.

Not only is it going to be more costly for those involved ,it also creates a safety risk.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Oct-09-13 3:23 PM

You could be absolutely right Ladybug it may not have been done right to start with. But that was in 1993 and laying blame at what did or did not happen then does not correct the situation now. Right now it is in litigation and until that gets settled everyone's hands are tied or they would assume total liability for the whole thing. If there is a possibility that the Smith's are only partly responsible for the repairs they would be out of their mind to accept full responsibility. That is why we have a court system.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 1:53 PM

Did it again,

Sounds like it was never really fixed right from the beginning in 1993

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 1:52 PM

Let me restate the common wall question cause I know Grant will jump on it.

When did it become a factor ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 1:49 PM

It sounds to the bldg., was really fixed right after the wind damage in 1993. ??

Why would someone invest in such a bldg. ?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 1:45 PM

Is the Salem Foundation going to fix all the other bldg. in town with structural problems.

Just when did the common wall come into play.

Since the Smiths insurance company payed to fix the Art Ins once,

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KsBug79

Oct-09-13 12:34 PM

Wouldn't it have been a kinder, gentler problem solver if the Salem Community Foundation would have given a grant to the Smiths to fix their building??!!! Going back as far as 1993 and previous owners, the city has cited those folks for problems with that wall. And they have fixed it. More than once. Even the Smiths have fixed it since they've owned it. Obviously everyone's put a bandaid on it and not fixed it completely. They fixed it well enough to meet the city/state code. Apparently this time, once it was pointed out to the Smiths the wall is a common wall, allegedly, they halted spending any more money on it. And as it's been stated, a court battle ensues. Stay tuned.....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ladybug

Oct-09-13 11:23 AM

I never said to dis-reguard due process,

Like watchdog and I both this should have been addressed yrs. ago.

Maybe all this would have been eliminated,

Know we more of a serious situation to deal with

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

concerned

Oct-09-13 11:05 AM

"OK concerned i'll make sure they follow due process in the mean time,"

Good Ladybug. You know in dictatorships and communist countries the government would just force them to do it without having to prove who was the responsible party. I am not supporting either side here. I am just supporting our system that men and woman have fought and given their lives to protect. The right of due process of law.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 75 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web