05/01/2026
The city will tell you they only care about the safety of this building.
After the fire Marshal shut us down in January, we had a meeting with the fire chief. At that time he asked us why we were opposed to using this engineer.
We voiced our concerns it felt the city was using us to gather evidence against us, for them to demolish our building.
He asked why we thought the city would want to tear our buildings down.
We responded to him after our first meeting with the mayor his words were we are going to demolish that building.
The fire chief said that’s the first he heard of it. And assured us the city has no intention of tearing them down.
So explain to me why, after we got this engineer report back and we had a meeting, the city stated we can move forward after we submit a plan of action, and get issued a building permit, before that plan was even finalized, your fire marshal submitted an application for demolition of our building?
I understand the state got $10 million dollars this year for demolition work to be done through the REAP program. Money will be available in October. So it’s beneficial to drag this out on your end, smile to our faces tell us your working with us.
Question to you, now that I have walked away from this project because no one was going to let us do anything anyway, what’s your plan?
I was told by the fire marshal he was concerned about if the fire fighters have to respond to a fire in that building it may collapse on them. Then was informed by the state fire marshal there’s a process they don’t have to enter the building for circumstances like this.
So if this is about safety why are you putting your fire fighters at risk?
I told the city we were awaiting an environmental cleanup,
Was told that didn’t matter
Is the city now safer for it?
Told the city we were attempting to get grants. Was told we should have had the money for it upfront.
Does the city have the money upfront to demo this building? if I donate it to you today? Or do you have to wait on a grant?
As this building that the city argues is structurally dangerous sits there till October.
Is the city safer for it?
Let’s be honest the funding won’t even be approved till October, by the time Rodney Loftis can get to it it’ll be January-February time frame. So a year since the city started this?
According to city time keeping that just short of 3 years for those following along.
So I owned this building a year was told that I’m irresponsible, and deserve the full weight of this administration to come down on me to force me to fix this building because it’s unsafe.
And then you stop all work make it impossible to work on it force me to jump through hoops so you can let it sit there for a year.
I understand the city has control over it so now the city must be safer, right?
Then you try to paint us as people who are broke and careless who do not care about safety. Lie to our face about demolishing our buildings, saying you are working with us as you are actively applying for grants to demo our buildings.
This never had anything to do with safety. This solely was about money.
So yes I am washing my hands clean of this. The city has a financial incentive to see this building knocked down.
That building in its current state owes around $6,000 a year in property taxes. Plus the city charges a 1% b&o tax on every dollar a business earns.
They wish to see this turned into a grass lot. And they will scream and cry they have no money to provide services to their constituents.
They aren’t just taking from me. They are taking from you and your children as well.
For what? I’m assuming someone’s short term gain.
So it’s ok, the city can try to paint me as the villain. I came to build something, to invest my time, and money. As these two letters show they came to destroy.
