Comments
whatlaw-wasbroken t1_j9om0sf wrote
The premise of the city taking it is the problem. I have no attachment to that building. The allocation of funds in that direction is my issue. Get the crime rates under control before dumping millions into a ball field and the hotel of terror.
HalfADozenOfAnother t1_j9rphzh wrote
Crime rates come under control by investing in the community.
Dizzy-Assignment-591 t1_j9r396p wrote
it’s a decrepit piece of shit that bro refused to refurbish. i say good fucking riddance.
JonnyG24 t1_j9q32v1 wrote
Eminent Domain is the city's right. What law was broken?
VaderTower t1_ja4m17h wrote
Nothing, people just think any use of eminent domain is the gubment taking their land.
I'm all for the little guy in some eminent domain cases. But honestly this was just a guy running a haunted house 1 out of 12 months a year. The building is basically boarded up because of that, and closed the rest of the year.
The place looks like shit and having a rough looking haunted house in the middle of the future park would be stupid.
JonnyG24 t1_ja51asf wrote
I know. I only asked the question because of the guys username. No one got it and the downvotes came quick lol.
[deleted] t1_j9pu5pm wrote
[deleted]
VaderTower t1_ja4llem wrote
Funny thing is the guys other buildings he owns down there street are in much worse shape than the hotel of terror.
Mind you he bought them shitty, he just hasn't ever done anything to clean any of them up.
If you ask me, he bought them cheap ( I know that for a fact), and my speculation is that he holds onto them long enough to turn a nice profit.
rocks66ss t1_j9o8hpe wrote
You'd probably think differently if it were your business, and your building that the city in effect was stealing from you.
DaltonTanner1994 t1_j9oadgw wrote
They’re giving market value, he has another building just down the road. You use the building once a year, you can use a park year round. The buildings and offices that will develop around the park will be used far more frequently, it’s more tax money. It’s simple economics.
rocks66ss t1_j9oak5o wrote
I know the man and did business with him who owns the haunted houses in the West bottoms in Kansas City, he uses those buildings once a year! But that's his livelihood, that's his job that's what he makes all of his money from. I get where you're coming from but it's not right that they come in and force you to sell your building and your business for what they deem is fair market value.
[deleted] t1_j9obp53 wrote
[deleted]
VaderTower t1_ja4md2m wrote
The city doesn't deem the value. A third party appraiser does.
In my opinion that building, in that condition, in that location, as it is, is worth maybe $200k tops. I don't know what the appraiser valued it at but the building isn't worth much at all.
rocks66ss t1_ja4phg6 wrote
Yes I know it's all for the greater good but I personally think it's wrong to ultimately push a man out of his business and force him to sell his property.
VaderTower t1_ja4z9ci wrote
Valid point, ultimately we live on a line between individual freedoms and societal benefit.
One is not good for the other. On one hand, I pay taxes on my property and everything I buy, that's a negative to my individual freedom of owning my land myself. However society wins because I won't voluntarily pay my fair share for the roads otherwise.
In this case, it's a shot at this guy's individual freedom, but because the city has deemed this as a high enough societal benefit that it outweighs the individual freedoms this man has to this land.
We absolutely disagree, and that's okay. This is the dialogue that is absolutely necessary so that the government doesn't steamroll everyone into submission. In this case I think it's justified, but I wouldn't say it is in every case.
rocks66ss t1_ja7fm3w wrote
This is where we are conflicted as individuals. I feel the tone of your comment as someone who is quite a bit younger than me, and has a sense of duty towards society.
As someone who is on the short side of 70, I don't have any feelings of any sacrifice on a personal level for society in any way shape or form.
My wife and I have worked very hard for what we have. There were times in our life when we hit some rough spots and asked for a little help to get us by. We were basically given the middle finger because we made just enough to pay our bills but not enough to buy groceries .
We managed to Make it dispite no help from anyone, unless we were willing to completely get rid of everything we owned or had, and start over completely from scratch on the government level. But we were the ones who gave the government the middle finger and managed to get through those hard times, and survive to make it to retirement age and be able to live comfortably completely and entirely on our own.
We have property and a home outside of Springfield that we own, and oh nothing on. We're in a very good situation, better than most. The only thing we owe is property tax this is a bit of background for better understanding of my position.
Where we live the chance of imminent domain is probably zero to none, but if I were forced to sell, I could see myself pushed to violence.
Ah I digress, my point is I have worked my entire life for me and no one else and when needed a little help, we were givin non. There were a couple of other times society/city/local government tried to Hammer us but we survived.
I have no feelings or allegiance to society, or anyone else but me. Thank you for the conversation,
[deleted] t1_j9oh4by wrote
[removed]
417spacewizard t1_j9ootew wrote
It's not stealing. Eminent domain is a tool that is covered in the US Constitution.
Golden3ye t1_j9q716r wrote
Constitutional stealing?
417spacewizard t1_j9qar8p wrote
If you are pro2nd you should be pro 5th you don't get to pick which constitutional amendments exist
TheThumpaDumpa t1_j9sb8mt wrote
No you don’t get to pick which exist but you can choose which you disagree with. Your argument sucks. I like the guns. The guns are great. But I don’t like the government dicking people and stealing their property. I’m not saying anyone is getting dicked on this particular deal, but people get fucked by eminent domain all the time.
417spacewizard t1_j9tbncm wrote
And countless people get killed by guns all the time. Seems a little backassward to protect the capital by railing against eminent domain and not care about peoples physical safety by being progun. I'll take the safety of countless people over 1 persons right to keep a shitty building
ghenghis_could t1_j9ojdc3 wrote
The employees harassed my daughter right in front of us and tried to fight us. Then they backed the employees up when reported. Fuck them
[deleted] t1_ja0249q wrote
[deleted]
ghenghis_could t1_ja0rc44 wrote
People are trolls. Left this group after two days
jimjamjangles t1_j9qnaf8 wrote
I'd rather have a cool haunted house than a park that'll be full of homeless people and druggies in a year. This city has so many other problems but instead they are focusing on a worthless park.
417spacewizard t1_j9omvu2 wrote
Good. They daylighting of Jordan Creek and the park development is way more important to the economy and ecology of the city in the future. This guy is going to get market value for the building and that's a huge return on investment for the song he probably bought the building for in the 70s.
MacAttack2015 t1_j9pt513 wrote
Good. Daylight the creek. It should have never been built over to begin with.
Francy63 t1_j9rgsrb wrote
Can you tell me more about the creek?
DaltonTanner1994 t1_j9rmy8y wrote
The city was founded on the creek. It was important to the city until the citizens started using it as a dump and became polluted. Around a 100 years ago due to flooding and the pollution, they buried the creek.
mslack t1_j9qwqsk wrote
A small business owner is being trampled. He is willing to sell, but the city is giving him a low offer. This could be any of us.
LeeOblivious t1_j9p4iaf wrote
Somone explain to me exactly why they need this specific building. There is plenty of room south of it to rout the creek. The railroad that runs along the creek seems to be the bigger problem.
Have they come to purchase agreements with the owners of the other buildings in the area, or do they only want this one specific one? Do they plan on purchasing the MSU properties in the area as well?
And why are we blowing funds on this daylighting project in the first place. What benefit does it bring for ALL of Springfield and not just a few property developers.
var23 t1_j9p9jvb wrote
There’s an entire multi year study and plan complete with engineering details. Look up Forward SGF or the Jordan Creek Daylight project.
LeeOblivious t1_j9pc79d wrote
NOT what I was asking.
var23 t1_j9pdfrh wrote
You asked “can someone explain to me why they need this specific building” and I answered.
You asked about other buildings which are also covered in the plans (brick city remains).
You asked about the benefit of the daylight project…. Also covered in the proposal and approved plans.
Care to clarify what it is you are asking?
LeeOblivious t1_j9pen2g wrote
I did not ask for a link (or no link in this case) and run. I asked for an explanation and reasons. Not a look it up yourself reply.
Quite frankly a study made with the singular purpose of justifying development is trivial to do. Puer propaganda in many cases. I've done them in my sleep.
var23 t1_j9pezgb wrote
Ah. You asked for someone to do the work of summarizing something you’re already a set against without actually being willing to consider it. Got it.
Cold417 t1_j9psjat wrote
Take your lazy ass to BK if you want it your way.
DaltonTanner1994 t1_j9pt7ph wrote
They need to redo the bridge that’s right next to the building. It’s in critical condition at the moment.
WendyArmbuster t1_j9r30u3 wrote
>I asked for an explanation and reasons. Not a look it up yourself reply.
I almost upvoted this for the comedy gold. Almost.
JuicedCardinal t1_j9r9pk9 wrote
There is absolutely no room south of it, unless the water starts flowing uphill. That entire valley slopes down toward the railroad tracks, and the building is in between the current channel and that low point. And, again, this building is right next to the creek already, and right next to the bridge that needs replacement. I guess the City could always pay double to rebuild that bridge without buying the land.
Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j9q4r4z wrote
I love the Reddit hypocrites.
"they're within the law to do this"
Then on homeless camps - "they should let the trespassing people live wherever they want."
the_honeyman t1_j9z1mz3 wrote
Almost like there are a bunch of different people who use reddit, and different people have different opinions.
Shocking, really.
Renn_1996 t1_j9pt72o wrote
Glad they are getting rid of this eyesore. They have had a number of large insurance clames due to unsafe features harming visitors, its ugly as sin, we need to focus on showcasing local natural beauties like the plan the city has in place. The owners aditude through this whole process is disgusting and childish, and proves he just wants money and doesn't actually care about the city.
It's also obvious that literally almost none of you understand how budgeting and city finances work.
jimjamjangles t1_j9qnri1 wrote
What are you talking about ugly? It's a fun horror hotel exterior, what do you want some freaking mosaic of children holding hands?
Renn_1996 t1_j9qug4t wrote
Lmao it looks like a bad high-school theater set. You want fun horror hotel make it look real at least
jimjamjangles t1_j9qvpa4 wrote
I mean, it's a local thing. I don't expect universal horror nights levels of detail. Just a fun little thing to get a scare at Halloween.
Renn_1996 t1_j9r2y6s wrote
No one expects universal quality in Springfield lol, but it hasn't been updated and you can tell.
jimjamjangles t1_j9r3ixo wrote
Yeah it is showing it's age, but I just don't like the way this whole situation is being handled by the city. I really really do not understand what good another park is gonna do. I do hope that they can set up the haunted house somewhere else in town at least. Seeing that Halloween stuff always brightens my day, a hell of a lot more than anything else downtown at least. And I feel like that speaks volumes.
Renn_1996 t1_j9r4jwd wrote
It's not just a park they are day lighting the water way that started this town and returning it to its natural bio diversity. This will add so much more value to the city then a cheep scare open one time a year. They have give the owner plenty of opportunity to sell or move operations. Now because they are having the value assessed it will likely be much less then what the owner would want. It sucks and I understand the sentimental value that the owner is putting on it. He's had it for a long time and put a lot of work in to it, but it's not safe plenty of people have been hurt because of missing safety precautions. I would love to see it open somewhere else but the childish way the owner is handling it is a bit sad.
TheThumpaDumpa t1_j9scaz2 wrote
You’re telling me the owner should’ve excepted the first offer of $200,000? Enlighten me on where he could relocate, move everything and be centrally located for $200,000. No fucking way that could happen.
jimmycrackcornmfs t1_j9s047i wrote
I know how city budgeting works, a significant part of my job duties. This would be part of their CIP program plan.
Springfield decided to infringe on the rights little guy and steal his property. Rather than bully property owners, the city could pay the asking price, or make an effort to get closer to an agreement. They could also find a new location.
Springfield has a terrible planning zoning development program. Parks could easily be better but they want revenue generating business. You end up with an abundance of car washes, gas stations and of course, gothic industrial churches
RobCali509 t1_j9r263b wrote
I'd make it a homeless shelter and offer some methadone to help take the edge off.
Inabind4U t1_j9rt3hd wrote
So...checking the math...city forces the sale of private property. City now owns it. They sign a usage lease with a DIFFERENT private party and build a stadium for them using taxpayer money? And also pay all maintenance and upgrades?
JuicedCardinal t1_j9rvmng wrote
It's not related to the stadium, except for the fact they're both downtown.
Goats_vs_Aliens t1_j9nw1de wrote
So the city stole his property.
jttIII t1_j9pognf wrote
No... they didn't steal it, they just used their government influence to acquire the property without his consent and without arriving at an agreed upon value from the owner for their version of a "greater good". Maybe you should just be thankful our benevolent lords have a vision for that serfs former property.
Goats_vs_Aliens t1_j9s9ar0 wrote
Right? how dare I, and how dare he.
jttIII t1_j9v7028 wrote
Now you're getting it... kiss the ring and ask no questions.
ghenghis_could t1_j9ojhxy wrote
No, he failed to maintain it to safe standards and its being condemned and purchased by the city for fair market value.
mb10240 t1_j9pc7w2 wrote
There’s no safety issue, in spite of the word “condemn”. Condemnation is just the legal proceeding that is used to take property using the city’s right to eminent domain.
Renn_1996 t1_j9ptim6 wrote
The safety and insurance clames beg to differ. This building and operation has not been safe for a while.
mb10240 t1_j9pztel wrote
While there may very well be issues at the property, that has no bearing on whether it is being condemned. Condemnation is simply the name of the proceeding used to acquire property through the city’s eminent domain rights.
Own_Ear_7356toss t1_j9q5qj1 wrote
You should re read the whole story. Your remark demonstrates your clear ignorance of the facts.
DaltonTanner1994 t1_j9o3csw wrote
It’s a shit building that’s only useful one month a year. Tear it down. It’s in an isolated part of downtown that’s in desperate need some positive development. The park that’s replacing it will be a good addition to downtown and make the area more attractive. It’s a win win. Y’all weird for holding on to a building that doesn’t do anything for you but once a year, considering the guys other building is like three blocks down the road.