![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (28)
Share link
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
 Heavy equipment from First Response of Nashville tore into the building at 109 E. Depot St. Monday. The neighboring structure, which once contained the Grapevine, was damaged by a collapsing wall. (T-G Photo by Brian Mosely) [Click to enlarge] [Order this photo] |
However, a collapsing wall that struck a neighboring building means that the city will either have to pay for damages or buy the entire structure and destroy it as well.
Crews from First Response of Nashville made the final preparations Monday morning to bring down the structure, which had been declared unfit for human habitation in March.
Workers protected utilities located in the alley behind the Center for Family Development and used cutting torches to sever a metal catwalk that extended from the rear of a building on the east side of the square to the failing building on East Depot.
Power was also cut to all businesses on the east side of the square while work was ongoing. According to planning and zoning director Kip Green, the plan was to keep the power off for two to six hours, however, he later stated that it should be restored by midnight.
The demolition on the East Depot side of the building was estimated to take six hours of work, with cleanup taking six to eight weeks in the rear of the building, Green said.
Green also said that all the historical material that can be saved from the building would be salvaged.
A small crowd made up of business people from Depot Street and others showed up to watch the building come down.
Councilman Lee Roy Cunningham watched with the crowd and spoke critically of the demolition to observers throughout the process, stating that the city has "made a mountain out of a mole hill" with the situation.
The crowd was urged to step back to avoid being hit by possible flying glass and then the crew went to work with heavy equipment to pull the building down.
For nearly an hour, sections of the roof and walls were brought down, pushed to the interior of the crumbling structure in an effort to keep the walls from falling into 113 E. Depot, which once contained the Grapevine.
However, as workers moved further into the ruins in the early afternoon, a large section of the eastern wall fell upon the rear of the Grapevine, collapsing the rear of the structure.
According to city manager Ed Craig, the Grapevine is actually made up of two separate buildings and "clearly the first quarter of it is destroyed and that may be enough to total the whole building."
Craig said Monday the decision about what is to be done with the Grapevine would be based on the cost of repair to the building.
The city council had passed three emergency resolutions pertaining to the building at 109 E. Depot two weeks ago.
The measures called for tearing down the structure, an agreement with Wayne Hix, the owner of 113 E. Depot, stating that the city is responsible for any damage to his property and has the option to repair damage or buy it for the appraised value of $83,000.
The best case scenario would cost $62,420 for just bringing down 109 E. Depot and the worst case would result in the city paying $195,420 for taking down both buildings, the council was told.
The council also agreed to pay for any repairs that might be necessary to 115 and 117 E. Depot, where an interior wall becomes an exterior wall if the Grapevine is leveled.
The building at 109 E. Depot was owned by Alice Albright of Alaska, who is said to be pursuing legal action against the former owners of the structure.
Green added that the city hated to take the building down, "but it had been a while coming."
"We hate to lose a historical building but there comes a time when there is no saving it," he said.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please ![[Order this photo]](http://t-g.mycapture.com/mycapture/remoteimage.asp?backtext=Return%20to%20site&backurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fstory%2F1463719.html&thumbpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fphotos%2F11%2F70%2F58%2F1170585-S.jpg&previewpath=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.t-g.com%2Fphotos%2F11%2F70%2F58%2F1170585-L.jpg&pricingsheetid=1482){kind=link}
If u knock down both buildings are u going to build anything in their place?
I would think that the company doing the demolition would be responsible for any damages that have occurred to the adjoining building. Isn't that why they have insurance? I don't see how the city could be held responsible for a hired contractors work.
Seems unacceptable to me that Councilmember Cunningham is too free to criticize the city he serves since the Council voted (based upon best information available)to proceed with the demolition. Which way does he go? His way or the best for Shelbvyille?
I would think that the company doing the demolition would be responsible for any damages that have occurred to the adjoining building. Isn't that why they have insurance? I don't see how the city could be held responsible for a hired contractors work.
-- Posted by what??? on Tue, Sep 23, 2008, at 11:42 AM
__________________________
Absolutely! I thought the same thing! They were suppose to be professional, were they not?
If this ain't a bunch of country, nothing is.
Now it gets interesting. How long do you think it will take for these good ole boys to figure this out? And the Lawyers will make some money.
I would say this company has it's ducks in line. As any demolition company has an opt out clause, not holding them responsible for any damage to other structures. If not they could not stay in buisness or afford insurance. And I would think this was brought to the city's attention before a contract was finalized. You know the city is'nt going to let you know everything!
It is my understanding that the city was made fully aware (by the demolition company) of the likelihood that the adjoining struture would be damaged or destroyed. That's why the city reached an agreement with Mr Hix prior to the demolition.
The demolition company clearly must have had a liability exclusion in their contract, so now we'll have to foot the bill. Ugh.
tn.moonshiner,
You are totally correct regarding the normal process for a Demolition Company. The contractual agreement normally excludes the demolition company from any liability regarding unforeseen damages to other adjacent buildings or structures. The contract that the city signed with First Response is a public record, and ANY of you bloggers or citizens can go down to City Hall and request to see it. I might additionally add that First Response is ONE of the BEST demolition outfits in middle Tennessee.
Brett the Sad Jet, got my arse kicked last night by the Chargers. Errrrrrrrrrrr
Was the three stooges music playing in the background. This whole situation hasn't seemed right from the beginning. SOMEONE made some $$$ off this or else it would have never gotten this much attention.
sameoldstory,
It got this much attention because the Building Official declared this building dangerous. The Building Official saw that it was threatening the public's safety. This building was in such bad condition that some of the certified structural engineers hired by the city to inspect it would not even walk upon the roof during their inspections.
There was a clear and present danger to the public. It is the responsibility of the City of Shelbyville to ensure public safety.
Sameoldstory, it appears to me that you are stuck in the past, please just continue to watch the three stooges and enjoy yourself.
Brett the depressed Jet, over the loss to the chargers.
This is a bad precedent the city has set into motion. If your building is about to fall down, just wait and we'll do it for you! When did the city get in the demolition business? Now that the city owns this property, what will become of it? What would happen to any profit that may come of it's sale? As long as we have the city czar we have now, this is only a preview of things to come.
There will no doubt be a brand new Mexican Diner/Quick Stop drug paraphenelia outlet going up in this location very soon.
Welcome to Shelbyhuana!
I was in the crowd on Monday when they were tearing the building down & I overheard councilman Leroy Cunningham say on Sunday he went to the condemed building & kicked in the door & entered the building. Is that not illegal? Just because he is a councilman is he above the law?
If anyone else had done that they would have been arrested. Or is it that the GOOD OLE BOY system is alive & well in Shelbyville????
Nessa . . . nothing has yet been built in other areas of the square where buildings have been removed for various reasons.
I know that is why I asked that. The square is the center of town, so to speak. Why make it look like trash when half of the square is buildings that have been knocked down. Keep it looking good. I hate to see the old buildings go but why not build back. The city would get money back from the buiness that back in there. Also anyone know what is going to happen to the Grapevine if the building they used is going to be knocked down.
I must reiterate over and over again, why was it the city's responsibility to pick up the tab on all this? When I have problems with my property, it is just that, MY PROBLEM. No one comes and does my dirty work for me. The owner of the crumbling building should have been responsible from the get-go of this entire ordeal. If their building was faulty and causing danger, they should have been responsible to alleviate the problem and assume whatever liability occurred to the other property owners' buildings. I'm getting sick and tired of bailing out greedy bankers, greedy landowners, lazy Americans, illegals and anyone else that has their hand out in today's society. The taxpayers' burden is heavy enough. I hope no one on the present council asks for me to re-elect them to their position. We need people looking out for the best interest of the entire city, not for the interest of a select few. If Councilman Cunningham was so concerned about the condition of the building, why didn't he inspect it before voting to let the city foot the bill? As far as the demolition company is concerned, I watched the video. I, too, would have included a clause that I would not be responsible for damages to other structures with the way they tore down that building. You sit on a huge piece of equipment and bang and crush until it all falls down. There was nothing that I could see put in place to protect anyone or anything from the destructive path of that piece of equipment except a little string of yellow tape. Council members save your advertising money you are spending on getting re-elected. If anyone at all runs against any of you, my vote goes to the new guy (or girl)!
writeattitude,
You have hit the nail on the head. It makes me mad that the Federal government is bailing out the mortgage companies for bad investments. Are they going to be paying for my mortgage? Doubt it. But my tax dollars are going to help big corporations from losing money. OH poor pitaful thing. What about the money I am losing?
The city should not pick up the tab, they need to sue First Response. I have had several experiences with First Response. They may have a big name, but they are inept, and do not care what happens. They will lie, cheat, and lie some more. All they want is your money. They never do what the say they are going to do. I no longer use them, and I know others that have quit using them too. They will tell you it's not their fault, but be sure to look close at what equipment they used, and at the operators creds.
frustrated american,
I was in the crowd on Monday when they were tearing the building down & I overheard councilman Leroy Cunningham say on Sunday he went to the condemed building & kicked in the door & entered the building. Is that not illegal? Just because he is a councilman is he above the law?
If anyone else had done that they would have been arrested. Or is it that the GOOD OLE BOY system is alive & well in Shelbyville????
Thats an interesting point of contention.
Brett the lame ankle Jet
Folks, I was born and raised here, been here all 50 years of my life, and will likely die here and be buried right up there in good old Willowmount. I've seen it all, the good, the bad and the ugly. You can believe that the Good Ole Boy system of government has thrived here since long before I was born, and it is not going to change until voters grow a backbone.
Maybe Leroy Cunningham was in the wrong, but we now are on the hook for over $100,000. Why wasn't the owners of the buildings paying the cost to bring them down? Is this how it works. I don't what to pay for the repairs to my property, so the City will just come in and rip it down for me?
Brett Favre...
From personal experience, I know just how great First Response is... they tear up every piece of equipment they rent and own not to mention working for them is somewhat of a health hazard. I've seen some of the infintitely stupid things they've done. They're a sad excuse for a demo company and they have no idea what they're doing half the time. They should've taken part of that building down by hand. Had they done that, they would've avoided alot of the damage they inflicted. Yes, it may have taken a little more time, but it would've been done right and it wouldn't have cost the city as much as it's going to now.
Also, that whole not liable clause is a bunch of crap. If you're incompentent enough to feel like you need to cover your butt by making sure someone else is responsible for your mistakes, then you don't need to be in the demo business.
I still don't understand why that building was in anymore need of being torn down than many of the other old buildings on the square. How are the others maintained so it doesn't happen to them?
I just want to know why it was allowed to get to that condition and how many other buildings on the square are being monitored to ensure they are safe. Don't appreciate your tone.
Stardust,
I have a right to my tone. I can fully appreciate that you do not respect that. That is ok with me; we can agree to disagree.
This building was brought to the attention of the Building Official and ONCE he was aware of this situation I think that he took the appropriate measures.
Brett the Jet. 6 TD's this week.
writeattitude,
You are totally correct with your opinion, you have a right to express your viewpoint.
I think your viewpoints are valid and your process of disseminating information is great. You seem to have an ability to express yourself well and argue your points well.
I am intrigued by your thoughts.
Would you consider a date with me some weekend?
Brett
woops,
Just realized reading your previous blogs that you are married. Strike my comments, no disrespect intended.
Brett