|
|
« Update: Snow wanes after heavy, slushy start / Photo | Today | Somerset police warn against disabled police aid group » January 14, 2008Update: Food terminal demolition begins, plus protestersPROVIDENCE -- Carpionato Properties began demolishing the old food and produce terminal on Harris Avenue this afternoon, soon after a judge's ruling allowing it. But the developer was forced to halt work for a time when several men -- and a man's dogs -- stood on the building to try to stop the demolition in hopes that an appeal of the ruling would be filed. The police, arriving about 4:25 p.m. after Carpionato Properties called them, told Erik Bright, who had two dogs with him, Clay Rockefeller and others they would have to get off the building or be charged with tresspassing. They got off the building, and Carpionato has resumed demolition work. The scene unfolded shortly before 4 p.m. -- shortly after a judge's ruling this afternoon that the company can knock down the terminal, denying an attempt by state lawyers to stop the demolition. By late afternoon, a backhoe was taking down a canopy at the building's front, and windows were being removed on a corner of the building. The Johnston developer had obtained a demolition permit last week from the Providence Building Official, allowing them to destroy the building as soon as asbestos removal work is complete. The permitting surprised state officials, who had sold the historic 1929 building to Carpionato in February 2007 with the understanding that it would be reused. The day after the demolition permit was issued, state lawyers filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order preventing Carpionato from knocking down the building. This afternoon, Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein denied that motion, saying that the state would be unlikely to prove its case in the long term. -- With reports from Journal staff writer Daniel Barbarisi “The court has concluded that it is unlikely here… that plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits,” Silverstein said. “The court inescapably has concluded here that it must find against the plaintiff’s position,” Silverstein said. Carpionato’s attorneys speculated that full demolition could take as long as four months. State lawyer Michael Mitchell declined comment. Posted by Mike McKinney CommentsLiam Gray | January 14, 2008 6:35 PM link I hope the state can at least recover the difference in price between what Carpionato actually paid and what the property was worth without the promise to keep the building intact. BC | January 14, 2008 8:06 PM link Finally. That place is an eyesore. I'd rather see a parking lot there than what it currently exists as. Tony P | January 14, 2008 9:22 PM link My belief is that the state should have the opportunity to buy back the property from Carpionato or void the sale. The developer failed to live up to it's agreement to reuse the historic structure. This is a travesty, the state could have sold that property for $10-15million if they hadn't put those restrictions in the RFP. Domenic Del Monico | January 14, 2008 10:48 PM link Could anyone tell me when is this going to stop?? msdpok | January 15, 2008 1:14 AM link Progress and the sands of time trudge along regardless of our desire to preserve vestiges of our past. It is certainly a shame that this is being torn down, but it is not quite one of the pyramids at Giza either. The only sad part of this is that the building's future was decided, not by its historic or cultural value, but rather at the hands of the developer's attorneys and a judge with a rather extensive reputation for granting developers wishes. But, then I awoke and realized we are not in Kansas anymore. We are still in Rhode Island and it's business as usual. Buzzy Smith | January 15, 2008 7:28 AM link Can someone please explain to me (and the rest of us non-natives) what is so historically significant about that ugly, dilapidated eyesore next to the railroad tracks that's so worth protecting? And if it was so worth protecting, why didn't the AG make sure the preservation wording was in the final purchase and sales agreement since it IS his job to review those documents? Greg | January 15, 2008 9:23 AM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
So when does the state get back the $10million discount they gave in exchange for the building being re-used?