Deadline given for Case Feed debris
Photo
Demolition of the old Case Feed & Produce building went on through Tuesday morning as neighbors and passerby stopped to watch.
Photo
Demolition of the historic Case Feed & Produce building began early Tuesday morning in Janesville.
Photo
A photocopy of a historical photograph lies on the ground near a pile of stray items taken from the Case Feed & Produce building before its demolition began Tuesday morning.
Photo
City workers take down aluminum signing from the front facade of the old Case Feed & Produce building before demolishing the structure at Center and Rockport Tuesday morning.
JANESVILLE — City officials are giving the owner of the demolished Case Feed building a deadline to reclaim the debris before city workers move it to a site at the landfill.
The city on Aug. 31 tore down the historic building at 922 Rockport Road. Officials said they were forced to do so after the owner over a year’s time missed two deadlines to repair the building.
During that time, staff worked with two potential buyers who either could not get the financing or could not create a viable financial plan.
K. Andreah Briarmoon, the real estate agent for the owner, North American Group of Companies in Madison, has said the city should have given the company more notice before taking it down so the company could salvage the materials.
Briarmoon presented the city with a request to appeal the decision to dump the materials in the landfill.
The Janesville Zoning Board of Appeals will consider the appeal at a Tuesday, Sept. 28, meeting.
Nadeem Syed, the agent for the company, could not be reached by the Gazette for comment.
Gale Price of the community development department said the city sent a letter notifying North American Group of Companies that it has three days to answer in writing and then five days to complete the salvage work. The letter was to be hand-delivered to Syed by a police officer, Price said.
The city had been considering moving the material to a site at the landfill, where the owner could salvage it. The city, though, was asked to put the bricks on pallets so they would not be damaged by the move.
Officials decided to allow Syed to salvage material from the site but only if he hires a licensed contractor, Price said.
“It’s about safety and liability,” Price said. “The biggest concern for us is that they should not have volunteers on the property trying to do salvage work. Volunteers don’t typically have understanding of the safety aspects of a construction site.”
The city also must receive a waiver of liability signed by Syed and the contractor.
If Syed doesn’t respond to the city letter, city workers will move the material to a site at the landfill. Syed will be allowed to salvage material there if the board of appeals rules in his favor, according to the letter.
Briarmoon has said the bricks are worth as much as $5 each.
Ron Sutterlin, who owns a Janesville restoration company, said Syed would be lucky to get $1 for each brick, and that is after the bricks are cleaned and if the seller can find a buyer. Sutterlin said he doesn’t believe it would be worth the time.
The bricks are painted with lead paint, which is also a safety issue, Price said.
The owner had plenty of warning that the city was going to tear down the building, Price said.
“They really gave up their right to any salvage material, according to the city attorney,” Price said.
Some residents also have questioned whether asbestos was correctly removed from the building before it was torn down.
Price said the city hired Scott Enterprises of Hartford, a certified asbestos-remover, to remove according to state Department of Natural Resources requirements the tiles, windows and wallboard that contained asbestos and to remove asbestos-wrapped pipe.
Sep 10, 2010 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
KAB has not had her license pulled yet, but should have for misrepresentation alone, in my opinion. I don't know if she is representing the owner in the Case Feed situation but it appears that way. I do know he would have received any letters from the city as the owner of the property. I think he is well aware of what's going on and could care less, letting KAB continue her one person war against the city. It was pointed out to me that there is never a group of people in KAB's public shows it's always just her, alone. I was told by some city employees who were present at the Pizza Stunt that they are concerned that she is not being taken seriously as a safety threat by the administration or law enforcement.
Sep 9, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
frusion, the City of Chicago owned the airport. Just so you know.
.
RustyRotor, I believe at the level of administrative actions anyone can act as a representative of another. If this were in the courts it would be something else. The tail is probably wagging the dog here, but Briarmoon does seem to have acted as Syed's representative in this matter for some time.
.
People talking about pulling her license over literally moving bricks are really being silly, and must have no concept of the stuff she has pulled over the years and skated out of penalties. Makes the current episode look like small potatoes -- and I'm talking about things where there were real consequences for people, not a pile of bricks.
Sep 9, 2010 at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Didn't the owner have plenty of time to salvage what they could? What was it 100 years of notice?
Sep 9, 2010 at 3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
gazettefan @ 2:24pm - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 9, 2010 at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
This guy misses a deadline and tear the building down, the ice rink people miss their deadline and it gets moved out. How is that fair and does anyone know what the new deadline is?
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city could make millions and get the $5 a brick!!
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
The KAB "easy (bake)brick lead oven"
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
gfan- ! )
So ever hear of mad hatter. To much lead-mercury in the top hats.
So if not short on bricks maybe not short on lead?
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
When you have a memorial plot for a building you are short of bricks!!!
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
MMMM lead based pizza....so tasty and healthy.
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
She could build a brick oven for making her own pizza.
Sep 9, 2010 at 2:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger: how well I know !I have helped out in the realty business as another realtors assistant and I do know KAB... only this time it won't be S.W. getting rid of her it would have to be the MLS and have her licence as a realtor and a broker pulled, or a stiff penalty ($$$) IF there was any wrong doing (not saying there was, just a assumption on my part)
*
Question here, how was she authorized to go and get bricks for her so called memorial? Did she violate the condemation order and go inside to get them??? Are they now sitting outside of the fenced in area and if so does that not pose a potential risk? I mean if they have lead based paint and all and accessable to the general public (children in particlar) what is stopping anyone from picking them up and taking them home, thus providing a chance for exposure and cosequences of the lead based pait poisoning???
*
Could she be fined for doing that?
so many questions still unanswered. Makes you go HMMMMMM
Sep 9, 2010 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
twerp"then I would assume that she was negligent as a real estate agent and should be reprimand appropriately. "
It has been done before by a company!!
Sep 9, 2010 at 12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
WHATEVER-
I just said maybe Graft would buy the bricks- NOT. $5 each is silly AND they are lead based.
I just said maybe KAB should buy them cause she could use them ! )
The other guy I think said she could use them to build a new carriage- cannot accept humor anymore here? PPLLEASE
Correct Gfan- NO SPITE-
Maybe times warned to fix or repair or it IS coming down.
Twerp- sept 9 9 am comment. I agree. I wonder if the owner EVER was told. I asked this question in another blog as HOW this info gets to the owner.
If she is in charge of handling this I would get to the bottom of it. Wouldn't it be interesting if the owner never knew any of this and just another scene between KAB and the city AGAIN brought on ONLY by KAB herself AND the owner just lost a building.
Sep 9, 2010 at 11:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Her motivation comes from an inordinate sense of personal entitlement. Money would be nice, but she'll settle for unearned notoriety.
Sep 9, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
KAB's only legal status in this situation is to act as a broker between a buyer and a seller. The city is not under obligation to tell her anything, only the property owner. Her blabbing about constitutional rights being trampled upon is just that, blabbing. The city did everything right, bent over backward trying to get the owner to repair the building. I dread the thought of what the council would have to contend with if this woman ever was elected to it.
Sep 9, 2010 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Duty Now for the Future!
Sep 9, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Again, I ask, what is KAB's legal interest in this? As a realtor what is her interest in advocating for the owner's rights and responsibilities?
Sep 9, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
True, frusion. Some people here can only see the administration and the council as boogie-men. They have no sense of comparison and historical context. It's easier for them to believe that something big is picking on people. They apparently didn't follow the course of events in a matter like this -and the personalities involved.
Sep 9, 2010 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree there was plenty of time given for any salvaging. It is sad to see the building gone, but now we need to get rid of the rubble soon. It is a eyesore and a potential danger to those who walk by or are dumb enough to climb the fence for a brick memento etc...
*
Had the owner responded to the cities letters and other requests, then this would never have been a issue. I assume that KAB kept the owner informed of the plans to raze or repair and the other notices that the city gave (if the company were not already sent the notices)should have been ample warning to get the stuff out or it gets sent to the landfill.
*
If KAB was not informing the owner of the plans,or gave them misinformation about the seriousness of the situation then I would assume that she was negligent as a real estate agent and should be reprimand appropriately.
But that is just a assumption from what I have heard.
Sep 9, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
gazettefan, May I add to your posting.... A LOT of leniency. If this was Chicago the building would have disappeared over night and you would have found out in the morning that your building is gone. Look at how Chicago got rid of the downtown airport.
Sep 9, 2010 at 8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
There was no spite by the city. It was all a matter of due process with a lot of leniency.
Sep 9, 2010 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
If he was so dam concerned over his bricks, he should've taken care of the situation long ago!
Sep 9, 2010 at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lots of spite and emotional decisions involved in this whole deal... zero logic.
Sep 8, 2010 at 6:53 p.m.
Sep 8, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.
Sep 8, 2010 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hopefully the city has the guts to stick to this proposal.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.