Rumors have been swirling around for awhile. When will the Oaks be torn down?

It’s now been more than two months since city leaders celebrated the developer’s plans for the site. Those plans have yet to be put into action.

It is no longer a celebration for city leaders. In fact, their patience is starting to run thin as they wait for progress with the old Oaks Hotel. But one way or another, the building will likely see work and soon.

Oh but it gets better;

“We really do need to see some work out there very soon,” Smith said.

If that doesn’t happen, the city could step in, have the work done and then charge Graham for the work.  Smith says that could soon be an option for the city,

A really stupid decision by the city, because not only would we be stuck with the bill for demolition, there would be tons of legal expenses for the city trying to get Graham to pay. Leave the Oaks alone. He will tear it down when he is damn good and ready. And if there is people in Sioux Falls that don’t like it, I suggest you cut a check to Mr. Graham to help him with the cost.

13 Thoughts on “As I predicted, looks like the taxpayers will be on the hook for the demolition of the Oaks Hotel

  1. Costner on September 1, 2010 at 6:53 am said:

    The thing is somewhat of a safety issue as is, and our police have spent far too much time there chasing out squatters and transients.

    Considering the place is full of mold (which is what resulted in it closing in the first place) it is only a matter of time before a responder or transient suffers a respiratory illness which we as taxpayers will be on the hook to treat.

    I’d say tear the thing down – and we simply would not allow Graham to rebuild anything on that site until he pays for the demolition… so one way or another the city will collect on the cost.

    As I mentioned before, they should just turn it over to Southeast Tech as a training ground for their heavy equipment operator program. It might take them a couple of months to fully demo the building and haul away, but it would be a great way for them to get experience and wouldn’t require sub-contracting out the demolition. The only underlying concern would be the asbestos removal which clearly will need to be done by a certified contractor. Once that peice is complete however – time to bring in the excavators.

  2. This is a good case of using ED to take the place.

  3. Or is it ID?

  4. The city, any government, should play hard ball with these panty-wastes. Stop mollycoddling them. Declare the site a nuisance. Take it. We the people have superior title. What is “just compensation” for a dump, for a liability? If the site is not taken and cleared; then at least the city should clear the nuisance and put a tax lien on the the title. In that way the city clears the site and may eventually get it for a pittance, then can sell it later for a “profit”.

  5. Ghost of Dude on September 1, 2010 at 9:17 am said:

    Nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    Actually, I like the SETI idea. That place is better as an empty lot than an abondoned hotel.

  6. anominous on September 1, 2010 at 11:13 am said:

    Fuckin’ A!

  7. The SETI idea would be a good idea except for the fact that the building is likely riddled with asbestos. Doubtful if the feds would allow students to handle that without being OSHA certified and its unlikely the school would want to deal with the legal implications that would involve.

  8. Still think my idea is best, wanna see it torn down, send Graham a check.

  9. If Graham were ignoring them, sure. But since he’s aware of the issue and has taken bids on the asbestos removal, the City needs to work with him.

    Tear it down and send a check, L3wis? Over what, again: a code violation?

    So, if you’re a developer, you deserve the gestapo tactics. If you’re a waiter, the City should back off and leave you the fuck alone. Interesting corner you’ve painted yourself into there.

  10. Huh? I’m defending Graham. Sorry if you misunderstand me.

  11. You are suggeting the City use Emiment Domain, grab his property, tear it down and send him a check, correct?

  12. My contention is simple. If taxpayers are going to be stuck with the bill, we might as well buy the property, clean it up and resell it to get some of our money back. What’s the point in paying for the cleanup and then chasing down Mr. Graham when we could simplify the process a bit.

  13. anominous on September 2, 2010 at 6:25 pm said:

    The historical precedent established under Mayor Hanson was: condemn, then use as a swat team counterterrorist training site, then burn it to the ground.

Post Navigation