Investigation into illegal demolition of historic Salt Lake City meetinghouse
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- An investigation is underway after the illegal demolition of the historic Fifth Ward Meetinghouse was brought to a screeching halt by city officials Sunday, saying they never issued a permit to tear down the historic building.
Subscribe to ABC4 on RUclips: www.youtube.co...
Keep up with the latest Utah news at abc4.com
Also, follow us on social media:
/ abc4utah
/ abc4utah
www.instagram....
Subscribe to ABC4's newsletters for morning news and the latest breaking alerts: nxslink.abc4.c...
No accident it happened on Easter when most people were busy
Maybe busy but definitely still in town going to church or social events during the day.
Before Everyone was/ is so corrupt they were not too busy and that's when we had blue laws so Everyone but emergency employees could have a day of rest and they rotated, but we have MANY a wrongfully entitled Christians too, look at that beautiful building and solid, before "developers" and their "bought" politicals of fake virtue pushing and the swallowers ARE overtaxed dollars being used to destroy, Everything.
No, it happened on Bidens "Trangender Persons Awareness Day" THAT is what the message was from the Whitehouse handlers on Sunday.
My old boss used to plan stuff for weekends for exactly this reason.
Agree. He's a really wiley developer. Fooled everyone!
A similar incident happened to the Crooked House Pub in Britian and the city council made the owner rebuild the entire structure.
Somebody' going to be out of millionss of dollars
Yeah but Utah is a Republican state, they absolutely hate the government telling people what to do
regarding that, the current owner wants it rebuilt in a different location. I hope they are refused and it has to be rebuilt in the same spot.
Is that he site that a
town placed a 100 no build restriction on?
The man who owns the building and had it demolished knew what he was doing, to knock it down on a weekend. The man knew what he was buying when he bought it. If he hadn't wanted to obey the laws surrounding its uses, he should not have purchased a national monument. He broke the law and good faith with the city officials.
Not a national monument. Only important in the small minded Cult of this small town.
His property he can do what ever he wants fuck the law
Hey, if invaders don't have to obey laws, why should tax payers obey laws?
@@thefix2573 Okay, comrade. Heaven forbid people want their town to be something other than what you approve of.
Heaven forbid you don't approve of what other people do with their property.@@oldman-zr2ru
The demolition company knew also they wouldn't start on a Sunday holiday without looking at permits.
there are cases where someone needs work done before the workweek starts but honestly this can't really be applied to this situation,
if it is anything like Belgium though, then these people are lucky they were stopped, here they can show up and just take a look at the plans and permits and order you to restore to the original state+ hefty fine, doesn't matter what you build or demolish.
i expect that the owner had thought, or maybe had been assured that if it were allready demolished he would just get a fine that he could easily recover with the profits the new building would bring in,
Whoever hired the demolition crew to do this needs to be ordered to restore the damaged building. If they are a licensed contractor, they should be also given a hefty fine for the no permit violation and loose their licenses for life.
It may be too damaged to repair now. The foundation looks like it's been torn up pretty good.
Would they have to restore all the graffiti and broken windows that were in the unused building prior to them beginning the demolition or would you have them restore it to the condition it was in when the LDS Church sold it decades ago or would you make them restore it to the condition it was in in 1910 when it was originally constructed? I bet gaslight fixtures are hard to come by now.
Restore it to falling down unattended?
lol did you see that equipment? They didn't have any licenses.
@@michaelbishop7654
As punishment for the violation, yes!
The company that demolished the building needs to have their business licenses revoked by the city. The building owner needs forfeit ownership of this property and lose any real estate licenses issues by the state or city governments.
Only after paying for repairing the building.
The owner shouldve have definitely gotten permits and if he got the permits for demolition and tore it down then oh well its his property but no permits definitely should get in trouble.
Prison time needs to happen not just a tiny fine.
Lol
Castration, DOUBLE Castration.
Who works on Easter morning?????
People who get paid for that.
Criminals, sneaky business owners
Well lots of people, but not usually destruction crews.
Nurses....
Railroad workers
Make them rebuild it as it originally was.
There was a pub in England that the owner had to rebuild after he tore it down.
@@airenesmiler6624 I was just thinking of that pub and that it exemplified the perfect solution to this situation.
Sell it back to the church if Joseph Smith
As a Demolition Contractor I know there are steps in place before demolition can take place 1. TESTING for Asbestos & removal if if tested positive AS OF now no testing was done so EVERYTHING as to be treated as Asbestos Major disposal costs now. 2. PERMITS 3 FENCING area of Demolition ( reporter inside the demo area.) 4. Water & sewer disconnects Owner & Contractor will face large fines from DNR & OSHA.
correct on all counts. plus permit's. city got to get paid too.
@@thomasgirty6397 Will be interesting to see the outcome on this. watching from Iowa.
100 percent correct. My company demo houses and we also spray water on them to keep insulation down.
Just imagine the evil actions that took place behind those walls.
Huh, you assume way to much and are disturbed. I hope you get some help, fast.
I'm sorry but the demolition crew didn't think something was wrong when they were told to start on Easter Sunday. As a contractor you didn't ask for the permit to demo the building that's you fault.
and even if the building was dangerous, a crew would have first removed any savable items. such as stained glass , ornate woodwork , etc. THEN it should get checked for lead paint , asbestose, and other hazard's.
My home town has people wanting to go there because it’s special, but then after they come in, they try to change what made it special. That was what someone said to me. I have not been there for years, but I hope all is okay. The people, themselves, made it special too!! New ones are welcome if they honor the culture that is there. I am speaking of a smaller, out of state city.
They run from the problem that they have created thinking that they can go somewhere else where the problems haven't gotten to yet, but they don't realize that they're the ones that are going to bring the problems with them.
@@mediocreman2 I wonder what the mayor is doing about it. I mean the differing ideas. I heard a while back that an ad said that someone was going to flip that city…you may know what that means, like with homes. It made me mad. Like they were going to use the city for their financial gain. Later, I heard that one was upset with all of the renovating and building, I think they said….kind of disturbing.
A lot needed to change about the city, the racism/ racial naiveté, something I normally do not mention at all due to aggressive responses from all races, the sexism, but not the historic buildings.
Brick and mortar can be a symbol, but the buildings aren't the offense. The buildings should not be damaged.
He did on purpose, hoping to do enough damage. In turns, it is removed from the historical site . The damage could make it have to be torn down so he can build condos their.
THERE. LEARN ENGLISH.
A developer in england did this to a pub. They completely demolished it. The government forced them to pay to rebuild the pub, brick by brick... I think that would be appropriate here.
Illegal demolition = no permit (tax) payed
PAID!
There's more to demolishing a building than just knocking it down.
When was the gas disconnected? By who?
Water main?
Sewer main?
Electricity?
Does the property contain asbestos?
How is it being demoed?
What is being used as fill?
Lead content?
Mold content?
Environmental impact?
If the workers would have stuck around. I would have believed they were told that who hired them, had the permits. But them taking off tells me they knew there were no permits and were hired illegally to demolish the building.
The demolition crew needs to pay for ALL damages and pay to 100% restore the building, and sued for violating permitting laws.
NO they do NOT...!
They should indeed be in big trouble.. They obviously did this without a permit. Liscense revoked!
@@kpdvwthey knowingly broke the law try again troll.
Before Everyone was/ is so corrupt they were not too busy and that's when we had blue laws so Everyone but emergency employees could have a day of rest and they rotated, but we have MANY a wrongfully entitled Christians too, look at that beautiful building and solid, before "developers" and their "bought" politicals of fake virtue pushing and the swallowers ARE overtaxed dollars being used to destroy, Everything.
its a jailable offense... they arent getting sued... id make them help rebuild it
The owner, demolition contractor, and developer (if any) all just declared bankruptcy to avoid any responsibility.
Source?
Currently, just my opinion, but….
that’s what I’d do. The restoration of the building would probably break the back of most companies. If I were the city, I would give the owners a choice either restore the building, or continue the demolition and forfeit the property to the city.
All pre planned most likely as well.
Before Everyone was/ is so corrupt they were not too busy and that's when we had blue laws so Everyone but emergency employees could have a day of rest and they rotated, but we have MANY a wrongfully entitled Christians too, look at that beautiful building and solid, before "developers" and their "bought" politicals of fake virtue pushing and the swallowers ARE overtaxed dollars being used to destroy, Everything.
@@mike83nyu the contractor?
Isnt the saying "sometimes its easier to ask for forgivess than permission"
In Chicago, a number of years ago, the then Mayor Richard M. Daley (son of King Richard the First) ordered crews to demolish the runways at Meigs Field starting at midnight. This was a small airport on Lake Michigan for private planes that he didn't like and wanted to turn into a park. Planes were left stranded, with no runways left to take off from.
Great example. Daley got away with that vandalism for profit, because that was an example of government and developers conspiring to destroy historically significant property for profit, while this is government weaponized to prevent a property owner from developing property. Meigs Field had taken federal funds that required Chicago to maintain Meigs Field as an operating public airport for 20 years, so that was a federal offense.
Same thing here, as the building and site were registered as historic, they were given tax breaks as well as funding to help maintain and restore. The new owner was well aware of the conditions of sale when they purchased the site.
Empty since 1978 doesn’t seem so important to me
Also like they said being on the National Register does not protect the property in any way. It’s only a suggestion and a hope.
If the city wanted to protect it and rule over it then the city should have purchased it!
Are permits to build new homes or building not required where you live?
Where I am we have to get our plans approved and the work inspected during work.
Here the same things are needed to remove things like major trees and especially swimming pools because removing them can damage neighbours property.
I'm sorry, but if it's so important for the city to preserve history, they should buy and maintain the buildings. It's obvious the owners wants to do something with his property and knew the city wouldn't make it easy.
Pretty sad when I have to go to the comment section to get to the really important parts of the story.
They need to penalize the owner of the property to make an example of him. This is a common ploy some dishonest developers use to eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles that keep them from doing what they want. Historic preservation is there for a reason. If the owner doesn't like it, then go through the proper process. This was a criminal act as the building could have had hazardous materials and the demolition process can release those things (like asbestos) into the air. So demolition permits are not just to control what can be done with property but also to ensure the safety of neighbors.
Obviously, the current owner knew that he was not legally allowed to tear down the building. My question is why this place should have been declared a historic building. The LDS Church sold it decades ago and if they felt it was so important to their history why did they sell it? If the city feels it is so important why didn't the city purchase it. The historic building declaration does not provide any funds for whoever currently owns the building to maintain it and you could see graffiti all over the portion of the building still standing. So the city will have a bunch of unmaintained historic ruins.
It seems to be something that buildings seem to go Historic after someone buys it. Then they get stuck with all of the limits on it.
1910 historic building? I doubt if there are any building plan to even try rebuilding it. The damage is done
Who is the owner? It seems everyone is dancing around not naming them. Why did they want to tear it down? If it’s so important / historical why doesn’t the city buy it and pay for upkeep and preservation?
Sounds like an owner is stuck with a white elephant property that wants to find a way out.
These people that tore this down. Needs license to operate should be pulled. Permanently
It's always easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission!
I am a history buff, but there are too many buildings that have little to no historical significance that get historical preservation protection.
If you think a building should be preserved then you should spend your own money to buy it and restore it.
That building was in disrepair, covered in graffiti and it was obvious no one wanted to fix it up.
The developer was doing that neighborhood a favor.
The ammount of historical buildings that went in disrepair is huge, just bc there isn't anyone interested in them now doesn't mean there won't be in the future.
That said, I agree way too many places get the title without anything meaningful behind it.
It is simple as being easier to beg forgiveness that ask for permission.
I was born a raised in SLC now residing in Az. I looked up the address 730 S 300 W.
Seems very suspicious to knock it down on a Sunday, everyone from Utah knows these people don’t work on Sunday. Very sneaky people need accountability.
You can tell they were in a hurry to do that there's no safety fence or barrier around the building
I cannot remember where it was but a city made a contractor rebuild a historic building they tore down to the last detail. It was not cheap.
It's like the old saying it's easier to ask for forgiveness than beg for permission
So, the owner is stuck with a building that essentially has no commercial value.
This is effectively a taking and if the city loves it so much then the city should purchase it for FMV which, it can be argued, is what the owner paid for it.
It also sounds like the city is going to further punish the owner by interfering with future permits.
Tragically, thousands of historical brick buildings have been destroyed across the US, especially between the Mississippi river and the East Coast.
Nationally recognized. In English that means it was abandoned!!! Not used and tax payers were paying the bill
Owner who hired them should go to jail for a while. As a local developer they should put him in jail and they could also make him put up a park or something on the property as a memorial. He tried to defraud the city.
Make it a city park !
So the Church sold the property, then pushed to have it made a historical protected site so they could get the money, but keep the building asis and screw over the new owner. That's the real story here.
if the town or people wanted preserve, they should buy it and do so. Restrictions placed by people who have nothing invested, should have has much say as their investment is.
No arrest made. No name mentioned. Great reporting 👏
I can't see that developer getting permits for anything in the future. Not even a doghouse.
LDS is a cult.
No update?
What’s historic about it? It’s a brick building.
If the building is that valuable why didnt the city buy it? Man that bought it should be able to do whatever he wants with it.
No. If he didn't want to preserve it, he shouldn't have bought it. He knew what he was buying, including its heritage status. It's on him.
In some countries, the perpetrators are legally compelled to reconstruct the historic building that was illegally demolished.
thats what happens when our cities our sold out to big greedy people
It is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Probably not cheaper though. There are going to be some hefty fines.
Not here 😅
This is why we need more stricter preservation laws
You are free to do as you are told
looks like a run down junk building that has served it's purpose it would have probably stood there another 20 years and deteriorated even worse it needs to come down for new development
The reporter holding her phone just looks so… silly? Unprofessional? Distracting? Casual? Juvenile?
(The action of doing so, not the person herself)
Modern women wouldn't know how to part with their phones if their lives depended on it.
@mediocreman2 Unfortunately that's true of almost everyone. Men and women.
Its only important because a cult built it a hundred years ago. I hope the owner can get this legal problem fixed and continue knocking it down.
Lol.ok.bru
I hate to see old buildings like that get demolished.
Notice the reporter never said the name of person or company that damage the building. Bet they are scared too.
Buildings like this usually have a "mysterious fire" that no one is ever caught setting.
We had a developer do the same thing happen out here in South dakota. came in at 2 in the morning and knocked the building down before anyone could stop them. They had no permits and were told they were not able to touch the build...
What happened to the property?
@@toddaulner5393 was used to expand the parking lot next door to it.
The amount of damage is not very much square footage wise of the whole, that section could be rebuilt like it was.
But the city was okay with the massive graffitti vandalism being done to the building. 😏
Easter morning tells you all you need to know
i dont even see a reason why... so how would you put effort into something that makes no sense...
Have you ever thought of reporting on "Where is it?" ????
Its not a "significant" religious structure if even the church sold it off. Also by the fact it took a human from the city to stop the demo and no divine intervention shows that just like the church, their invisible friend doesn't give a damn about it either. If you want to tell people what they can and cannot do with a property they own then think about if you want other people to decide what you can or cannot do with property you own.
Your lack of any viable beliefs has nothing to do with the Historical significance. I surely bet you believe in the Devil though.
How do you know a city worker that knows first hand was the one that happened to be driving by on Easter Sunday wasn't divine intervention?
I'm the descendent of a Mormon pioneer, who went west with Brigham Young.
He thought better of it a few years later; probably he read The Book of Mormon.
It wasn't of any real historical value, in any case.
Who gave the Contract to the Contractor?
what construction crew works on a sunday? let alone a holiday??!?!?!?
Was the company and crew arrested? Who hired them? Were they going to sell some of the rubble?
Why is the owner not in jail already
The developer had crews demolish the property, so the developer is responsible for repairing and restoring the structure to its original state no matter what the cost to the developer, and permits will be filed. This is the way.
They need to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law
The fact the city can decide what you do with your property and what is historic in a free country is insanity.
Dude bought it knowing it was on the historic list…
@@vaughnharris6404Not by Fed standards. People should get over living in the past and let a new future proceed. Whole damn salt lake valley is surrounded by Earth quake faults. Safer for all too be torn down. Plus the building is in a dumpy part of the town,tearing it down makes complete sense. Why do you think LDS church unloaded church? No value for a unsafe building in a sketchy neighborhood.
One LDS fella told me: better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.
But if it happens to a home owner, they won’t do anything about it.
Demolition being done on Easter Sunday?. That doesn't just happen. That's a holiday for family get togethers. Now that the damage has been done. The building will have to be leveled. Someone got what they wanted.
It’s private land, the city should not have the power to stop anyone from tearing down their decrepit vandalized building. Historic list or not, it’s still private property.
Stop allowing government to take your property. (If you’re unable to use your property because of government overreach, then they HAVE taken your property).
They got what they wanted. It will no longer be listed as a historic property. Now he will pay the small fine and keep developing.
Jail time might be good for the person who ordered this.
Wow! Imagine being able to do what you want with your own property.
Shows you that SLC has neglected essential bookkeeping and policy enforcement.
I generally think that it is wrong to tear down cool old buildings
They should be forced to rebuild it brick by brick, like they did in Europe with a historic tavern demolition that was not approved.
Since when do they work on Easter Sunday?
these historic buildings are falling down on their own all over the country though, since people aren't bothering to maintain them, so in a sense this was safer then just letting it fall on top of someone.
On Easter? Fishy..
Someone is IN TROUBLE!
Someone needs to go to jail
Sure you demo anyway then deal with the government later. Most is done on weekends when agencies are not working. Where I live they do illegal vista pruning of wetlands on Sundays.
When you see people tearing down buildings cutting down trees and usually affecting the environment on a Saturday Sunday or holiday they are usually invading building inspectors building permits and zoning regulations. It happens a lot in the Florida Keys
Call the police, who usually won't do anything because okay well you got to wait till Monday. Take lots of pictures. Damage usually cannot be reversed. And the f i n e s aren't big enough
Gov always talks a good talk, but at the ed of the day... they only care about enforcing stuff that makes them money. These guys will get away with it.
Put the guy in jail.
Who owns the property? The city??
Yeah sure some random dude paid a contractor to demo a building owned by the city. 😂😂
@user-pw8fu8ji9r that's point. It's not the beurocrats who own it. A private citizen owns it. The city has no say in the matter. I'd like to see something in writing. A contract that says the city has any control over it.
Agree. If the city officials or historical society wants to preserve it, BUY IT!
@@user-bd5md5cm2j Cities have control over every property, try not paying your property taxes some time and find who really owns your property.
@oldman-zr2ru it's ridiculous how these people feel like they control everyone. It's communism and they have been around it so much, there trained to suppress people.
I hope they arrested the operators.
Company involved in tearing down should foot the bill to rebuild it.
They better get busy with the apologies and the mortar mixing…
The church sold the building the new owner had every right to do whatever he wanted✅ the only thing he didn't do was get a permit. It was an old abandoned building that stunk..😅😅😅