Welcome to our new web site!

To give our readers a chance to experience all that our new website has to offer, we have made all content freely avaiable, through October 1, 2018.

During this time, print and digital subscribers will not need to log in to view our stories or e-editions.

Blighted downtown buildings remain a sore spot for city council

Justin Addison, Editor/Publisher
Posted 2/9/21

The City of Fayette’s ongoing saga with downtown building owner Dan Ruether entered another chapter last week. During the Tuesday, February 2 city council meeting, aldermen discussed repairs …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Blighted downtown buildings remain a sore spot for city council

Posted

The City of Fayette’s ongoing saga with downtown building owner Dan Ruether entered another chapter last week. During the Tuesday, February 2 city council meeting, aldermen discussed repairs made and a new engineering report submitted by Ruether.

Ruether is the owner of nearly a block of buildings on the west side of the downtown courthouse square that has been a source of controversy for nearly a decade, piquing over the last two years. Two of the buildings were addressed in a hearing held by the city council in December of 2020. In that hearing, the city found that based on two engineering reports, the buildings should be considered dangerous. In January, the city attached signs to the fronts of the buildings that stated the buildings are dangerous. Since then, at least one tenant of the upstairs apartments, a student attending Central Methodist University, is seeking a new residence.

Reuther, who lives in Columbia, Missouri, declined to attend the hearing.

As a result of the hearing in December, the council demanded not only that Ruether make necessary repairs to the buildings, but submit plans with a timeline to the city within 30 days. No such plans have been submitted, and Ruether reportedly has had no contact with the city since the hearing.

The buildings in question are located at 102 and 104, known as the Bell Block Building, and 114 and 116 North Church Street. Another building owned by Mr. Ruether, which lies between those two buildings at 106 through 112 North Church Street, was not addressed at the hearing.

The Bell Block Building, erected in 1883, actually contains four storefronts, 102 to 108 N. Church. It unclear why only half of the building was the subject of the hearing in December.

The city’s building inspector and director of public works, Danny Dougherty, told the council on Tuesday that he and City Administrator Tyler Griffith met with Ruether. “We didn’t really feel like we got anywhere,” Dougherty said. He told the council that Ruether denied receiving the city’s order following the hearing. So Dougherty and Griffith personally handed the order to Ruether when the three met.

“He’s got plans. But we didn’t see any of the plans,” Dougherty said.

Dougherty reported to the council that Ruether has performed some work on the ceiling joists above the laundromat. “I don’t think it’s in danger of falling in.” He also said a wooden staircase at the rear of the building has been at least partially mended and is unlikely to collapse. “It’s better than it was, but it still needs some more work done,” he said.

The building at 116 North Church had a temporary roof installed on the second floor after heavy snows collapsed the original roof in 2013. Eight years later the roof is still in place, and the building remains an eyesore in an otherwise historic downtown. Dougherty reported that the roof has been covered so that water no longer leaks into the building. Water damage over the last eight years has rotted the flooring inside.

“My question is, what now?” said Dougherty. “We gave him 30 days to show some progress. He’s shown a little progress.”

Southwest Ward Alderman Grafton Cook floated the idea of the city seizing the Bell Block building through eminent domain laws. The Bell Block houses the laundromat, upstairs apartments, and three empty storefronts. “Sometime down the road, the city needs to consider taking possession,” Cook said.

City Attorney Nathan Nickolaus explained that the city could actualize eminent domain on properties that are blighted. “(The buildings are) clearly blighted,” Nickolaus said. The process takes about six months, he explained, and the city must obtain an appraisal of the property. It is expected the city would pay a percentage over the appraised value. 

“He has no motivation to do anything because he thinks he can run a game on us and we’re not going to do anything to him,” said East Ward Alderwoman Stephanie Ford.

The council voted unanimously to invite Ruether to attend one of its next two meetings to submit plans for the buildings. If he fails to attend, the council will force him to attend by subpoena. In the meantime, Dougherty will write a timeline outlining repairs the city expects to be completed.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here