November 18, 2022 email from Don Moniak to the Aiken Design Review Board.
Chairman Law,
At last night’s (11/17/22) public workshop, the Design Review Board (DRB or Board) requested information about the condition of Pascalis project properties officially owned by the City of Aiken’s Municipal Development Commission (AMDC), and paid for with public funds.
Following are three lines of information for the Board to consider. The Board is charged with determining whether any properties warrant a designation of “demolition by neglect,” meaning the owners have permitted structures or property to:
“fall into a serious state of disrepair or to remain in a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior architectural feature which would, in the judgment of the Commission, produce a detrimental effect upon the character of the structure or property, or, if the structure or property is in an Historic District, upon the district.”
1. The AMDC chose to avoid last night’s public meeting, and its absence was an act of neglect. The commission is established by city ordinance, funded by the City of Aiken, and is mandated to work on behalf of the citizens of Aiken, who remain at the top of the city’s organizational chart.
The failure of a single commissioner to attend was inexcusable, and only served to strengthen the public perception that demolition of its half of the block remains the commission’s only goal.
2. The terminated Purchase and Sale Agreement between the AMDC and RPM Development Partners, which required the AMDC to:
“manage and operate the Property in accordance with past practices and maintain the Improvements and the tangible Personal Property in substantially its current condition and repair, ordinary wear and tear excepted, to be delivered in a broom clean condition at Closing.”
This PSA should provide one benchmark for evaluating how well the property owner, who was absent from last night’s proceedings, has maintained its properties. Unless water damage from roof leaks are considered “ordinary wear and tear” then the AMDC failed to meet even this most basic contractual obligation.
The Hotel Aiken is not the only AMDC property with a leaking roof. The CC Johnson Drug Store had problems with leaks when the Shah family owned it, and a chimney remains covered with a mat held down by cinder blocks. What is the purpose of this low-tech arrangement?
Beyond Bijou in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens St, SW, reported another roof leak on its Facebook page on September 2nd.
As an aside, this PSA is no longer publicly available. The City of Aiken removed it from its document repository within 24 hours of the publication of Downtown Aiken Half Price Sale on November 10, 2022.
2. On November 8, 2022 the AMDC published a page of photographs showing the existing conditions of a few of its properties, but almost primarily the Hotel Aiken.
Unfortunately, the AMDC purchased its properties in an “as-is” condition and did not have them appraised or inspected. So the commission has no baseline for what the conditions were in the Beckman Building at 106 Laurens Street, SW, Taj Aiken Restaurant, and the McGhee Building when it wrote that:
“From every angle, the area of Downtown that makes up the Project Pascalis footprint is in need of a refresh. This highly visible block of the central business district has fallen into disrepair, as the former owner’s plan to redevelop the Hotel Aiken and adjacent property has stalled.”
However, the photographs do provide a baseline of the conditions the AMDC willingly accepted when it spent $9.5 million of public funds on the seven properties. The Board could recruit volunteer, independent photographers to replicate these photos to see where conditions have worsened under the minimalist management approach of the AMDC, where they have remained the same, and where there might be an improvement.
One example of how disrepair has remained in place is shown by a comparison of this photograph published on November 8th, that shows a boarded up window on the Laurens Street side of the Hotel Aiken.
And here is a similar view taken on November 17, 2022, with the same boarded window. The only differences are there are more leaves remaining on the Ginkgo tree this year, and the presence of the Voluntary Cleanup Contract sign.
Another November 8th photograph illustrated a tree growing out of a second floor window of the Beckman Building. As reported in “A Tree Disappears in Aiken,” the AMDC neglected for nine months to remedy this highly visible situation it cited as an example of disrepair.
The Board should obtain the original photos from the AMDC and work to replicate some of them as part of its information gathering and analysis process—if one actually exists. After all, Chairman Law collaborated with the Pascalis project manager to gather information to support the demolition application.
As seen in this screenshot of Capstone Service’s February, 2022, work invoice, that collaboration included planning drone pictures of the Hotel that were shown at the Board’s Feburary 1, 2022 workshop. These photos could also be replicated to determine the degree of neglect this year.
If the Chairman of the Design Review Board could work with the City’s Municipal Development Commission and Planning Deparment earlier this year to help build a case for demolition, then the Board as a whole should be willing to work with citizens–who fund the existence of the commission– to determine to what degree the Pascalis properties have been neglected to the detriment of downtown Aiken. It can then act in accordance with Section 5.1.8 of the municipal code, Ordinance 04142003A, which requires corrective actions and penalties for violations “of any provisions of this Chapter.”
Thank You,
Donald Moniak
Footnote:
The Aiken Chronicles is encouraging readers interested in the upkeep of the publicly owned Pascalis properties to submit suggestions on how the Design Review Board should proceed to eurekascresearch@gmail.com. This includes any pertinent information that should be gathered, and what non-neglect should look like.
The suggestions will be compiled and published; and presented to the Design Review Board. Anonymity is allowed.