SLC: Performing Arts Center and 111 Tower

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

The RDA has offered the woman who owns the former Eat-a-Burger site far more than the price mentioned earlier. Every time the city puts in an offer she asks for more and more. I wouldn't be too shocked if the RDA was looking at that site but in doing a little bit of research, I don't think that the RDA owns the former Braza Express site at 147 S. Main St. and I do know that they were very interested in the city earlier.

According to the Salt Lake County Assessor website, Braza Grill at 147 S Main is already owned by the RDA.

[SLC Projects]

That lady just sounds greedy. RDA, don't give in to her demands. Offer what you guys think is fair and no more. Greedy selfish people like her don't deserve to win in these cases.

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

That lady just sounds greedy. RDA, don't give in to her demands. Offer what you guys think is fair and no more. Greedy selfish people like her don't deserve to win in these cases.

Greedy bastards like that also deserve eminent domain. Do I not condone its use but there does come a time where its use is a good thing. When its land bankers that don't care about anything but the value of the land and they allow the buildings to deteriorate to the point the old eat a burger is, then its time to do something about it. Maybe not do eminent domain but place enough taxes or fees to the point where it no longer is of any value to keep the property.

[SL,UT]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

That lady just sounds greedy. RDA, don't give in to her demands. Offer what you guys think is fair and no more. Greedy selfish people like her don't deserve to win in these cases.

If I owned that land I would probably be just as greedy if not more. That site is very valuable and although I don't know what they offered her, It probably wasn't enough for how valuable that piece of land really is.

[Future Mayor]

deleted, stayinginformed got there first.

[jedikermit]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

If I owned that land I would probably be just as greedy if not more. That site is very valuable and although I don't know what they offered her, It probably wasn't enough for how valuable that piece of land really is.

Honestly, I probably would too. At least hold out for as much as I thought I could reasonably get. Course, I'm a greedy bastard myself.

[utenation]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

If I owned that land I would probably be just as greedy if not more. That site is very valuable and although I don't know what they offered her, It probably wasn't enough for how valuable that piece of land really is.

If they want to be greedy, fine. But there needs to be regulation and or tax penalties for not keeping a property safe and at least up to basic par..


What is this Detroit?

[UTPlanner]

That's interesting to read that 147 S. Main is already owned by the RDA. Apparently, the city needs to do an update on their system because mine is definitely still not showing up as owned by the.

Also, I don't believe that you will see the city using eminent domain any time soon. It is used as a last resort and generally only when trying to assemble properties for a development and there is one final hold out. That isn't the case in this situation. It is also extremely bad publicity for the city.

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by UTPlanner

That's interesting to read that 147 S. Main is already owned by the RDA. Apparently, the city needs to do an update on their system because mine is definitely still not showing up as owned by the.

Also, I don't believe that you will see the city using eminent domain any time soon. It is used as a last resort and generally only when trying to assemble properties for a development and there is one final hold out. That isn't the case in this situation. It is also extremely bad publicity for the city.

While there is no development in the works right now it could easily be the case considering the RDA owns the three parcels directly to the north. Combining those three with the Eat-A-Burger site would give them .28 acres to work with. While it's not huge, a lot can be built on .28 acres in an urban environment, The Walker Center, not including the garage is on .32. I wonder if a non RDA buyer were to offer the owner a bit over market value if the buyer would be more willing, I wonder if they just don't want to sell to the city?


I agree, the city probably shouldn't use eminent domain because it usually is a pr nightmare. On the flip side, I don't think there would be a huge number of people that would be upset if the city did use it in this case. I would guess only those that are adamantly against the use of eminent domain would be opposed.

[SL,UT]

Originally Posted by utenation

If they want to be greedy, fine. But there needs to be regulation and or tax penalties for not keeping a property safe and at least up to basic par..


What is this Detroit?

MORE REGULATION AND TAX PENALTIES??? Are you kidding me. This person owns this land right out... Why the hell would you want to tax someone just because they own some land that YOU think is an eyesore. Some land that YOU think needs to be developed. That is the most pathetic thing I have ever heard. There is a fence around the property with the proper signage to keep people out. As far as SLC is concerned, that is acceptable.

Have you seen your paycheck lately? I think we are all taxed enough already. Just because she doesn't want to sell doesn't mean you can pull some stingy GOP-like tactics to force her to sell. She owns the freakin land and until LD$ Inc forces her to sell so they can build another meeting house, this is her land and she can do what ever she wants.

[utenation]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

MORE REGULATION AND TAX PENALTIES??? Are you kidding me. This person owns this land right out... Why the hell would you want to tax someone just because they own some land. That is the most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

Have you seen your paycheck lately? I think we are all taxed enough already. Just because she doesn't want to sell doesn't mean you can pull some stingy GOP-like tactics to force her to sell. She owns the freakin land and until LD$ Inc forces her to sell so they can build another meeting house, this is her land and she can do what ever she wants.

LMAO. I couldn't care less is they own the property outright pal, there is basic maintenance on the structure that needs to be maintained. Or it should be subject to penalties.

Here is SLC code.. Looks like the Eye Sore Burger owner is in violation to me.. Looks like SLC needs to drop the hammer.. The place is a disaster and has not been kept up to the basic code..

18.48.240: LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE:
Existing landscaping and lawn on the property shall be maintained in the manner otherwise required by law. (Ord. 80-94 § 2, 1994)
18.48.250: EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE:
A. The exterior of a boarded building shall be maintained as required by relevant requirements set forth in sections 18.50.140 to 18.50.230 of this title. In particular, exterior walls and surfaces shall be properly maintained and severely weathered, peeling, or unpainted wood and damaged siding and roofing shall be replaced or repaired with similar materials and colors.
B. Doors, windows, special glass, fixtures, fittings, pipes, railings, posts, panels, boards, lumber, stones, bricks, marble, or similar materials within the interior of a boarded building shall not be salvaged except upon the issuance of a predemolition salvage permit as provided in section 18.64.070 of this title.
C. If the owner of a boarded building fails to maintain the building and its premises as required by this section and section 18.64.045 of this title, the city may take appropriate legal action to enforce such requirements. (Ord. 94-12, 2012)

http://www.slcdocs.com/HAAB/BoardingWebsitewithURLs.pdf

[SL,UT]

Originally Posted by utenation

LMAO. I couldn't care less is they own the property outright pal, there is basic maintenance on the structure that needs to be maintained. Or it should be subject to penalties.

Here is SLC code.. Looks like the Eye Sore Burger owner is in violation to me.. Looks like SLC needs to drop the hammer.. The place is a disaster and has not been kept up to the basic code..


http://www.slcdocs.com/HAAB/BoardingWebsitewithURLs.pdf

So in other words, about a quarter of the homes in Salt Lake. You and me both know the city doesn't have the resources to enforce that.
And I am not your "pal"

[utenation]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

So in other words, about a quarter of the homes in Salt Lake. You and me both know the city doesn't have the resources to enforce that.

I'm simply stating what needs to be done. You're claiming a property owner should just be able to let things go to shit because "they own the property". Clearly that's not the law.

Obviously action hasn't been taken and there are plenty of other eyesores in downtown but this is the worst especially for the heart of downtown..

Bottom line, it's time to get rid of this eyesore and enforce the law on this greedy owner. Clearly they don't care about a progressive downtown, community growth and responsibility.

[utenation]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

.
And I am not your "pal"

I think that part we agree on.. Thanks for letting me smack your BS out of the park.

[ajiuO]

I actually think that the city should require her to rip that building down.. It's not suitable for use it's not safe and eventually it's going to crack apart and collapse..

First of all taxing people is not a GOP policy it's a liberal policy...

I agree that taxing and fining is not the solution with a couple of exceptions... I think the property needs to be maintained so that it does not become a safety or fire hazard.. If it does become a safety hazard the owner should be required to deal with the problem... This is the point that we are at with the eat a burger building.. The building is sinking and cracking apart..

Also if it gets to a point where overgrowth and trees damage city property and sidewalks.. Or requires any cleanup on the part of the city.. The owner should be billed and fined

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

She owns the freakin land and until LD$ Inc forces her to sell so they can build another meeting house, this is her land and she can do what ever she wants.

I still don't get why people can post abhorrent things like this and get away with it.

[ToysNoiz]

Originally Posted by SL,UT

She owns the freakin land and until LD$ Inc forces her to sell so they can build another meeting house, this is her land and she can do what ever she wants.

In full respect, I'm getting really sick of bullshit talk like this from you.

[SLC Projects]

The issue is she doesn't give a rats ass about the land/building and I doubt she's even visit that site in YEARS, if ever. 99.9% will call that burger building an eyesore and it's unsafe as well as ugly. Frankly, it's an embarrassment to even have right in the heart of our downtown and with the PAC going in, plus City Creek Center, the Gallivan Center as well as all the shops up and down Main, there's plenty of foot traffic walking by that rundown site.
She doesn't have to sell sure, but she needs to do SOMETHING! Rip down the damn thing and plant some trees at the very least.

[ajiuO]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

The issue is she doesn't give a rats ass about the land/building and I doubt she's even visit that site in YEARS, if ever. 99.9% will call that burger building an eyesore and it's unsafe as well as ugly. Frankly, it's an embarrassment to even have right in the heart of our downtown and with the PAC going in, plus City Creek Center, the Gallivan Center as well as all the shops up and down Main, there's plenty of foot traffic walking by that rundown site.
She doesn't have to sell sure, but she needs to do SOMETHING! Rip down the damn thing and plant some trees at the very least.

100% agree.

And I don't normally support creating more empty lots.. For example I would not advocate tearing down arrow press Square unless there was something to replace it.. But eat a burger is just ridiculous.. It's by far the trashiest looking building in downtown Salt Lake.. And it's not likely that it could ever even be usable again... If she wants to sit on the land that's fine.. But she should be required to teardown the unusable building.. It is going to have to happen anyway..

Hell she would probably bring up her own property value by turning it down... It makes it look better and it's less of an expense for a potential buyer.. She could probably recuperate double what it would cost to tear it down.

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

100% agree.

And I don't normally support creating more empty lots.. For example I would not advocate tearing down arrow press Square unless there was something to replace it.. But eat a burger is just ridiculous.. It's by far the trashiest looking building in downtown Salt Lake.. And it's not likely that it could ever even be usable again... If she wants to sit on the land that's fine.. But she should be required to teardown the unusable building.. It is going to have to happen anyway..

Hell she would probably bring up her own property value by turning it down... It makes it look better and it's less of an expense for a potential buyer.. She could probably recuperate double what it would cost to tear it down.

I do remember a similar situation up in Logan with a property on 10th and Main. The guy sat on that thing for over 20 years. Put cement 5 gallon buckets around the lot to keep us kids off of it for a hang out spot. He was asking way way way too much for anyone one in the Valley to buy it. The city did make him tear down the building after a while and then he died before someone bought it. Kid inherited it and a long comes Walgreens. So maybe we will have to wait but one day they will die and the kids will sell, they always sell.