The Virginian-Pilot
©
VIRGINIA BEACH
The owner of a historic but long vacant and deteriorating Oceanfront building must tear it down or have the city do it.
Last month, bricks fell off the Roland Court Theater on 17th Street, creating a safety hazard, city officials said. Owner Paul Dugas of San Diego said he plans to tear down all or part of the building before the city's early May deadline. City officials sent Dugas a letter April 16 telling him to demolish it.
Preservationists lament the impending loss of the funky U-shaped building, which opened as a movie theater in 1925 and was later a playhouse and then a series of bars, most recently Ocean 17. The building, which resembles the Alamo, was built in the mission revival style with a clay tile roof and arched windows and doors.
"I'm so sad about it," said Mac Rawls, chairman of the city's historic preservation commission. "If it were restored, it would be a beautiful building and quite quaint, and quaint is something we don't have much of at the Oceanfront."
Last year, the commission unsuccessfully tried to save the old Oceanfront Post Office, which was torn down to make room for a Walgreens.
City officials and Dugas have squabbled about the fate of the building.
Deputy City Manager Steve Herbert said the city has tried to help Dugas find a tenant. Dugas said the city has blocked his efforts to rent the building. A deal to move the Jewish Mother restaurant into it fell through.
The 14,000-square-foot building has been empty for years. Dugas bought it in 2003 for $1.2 million, city records show.
"We're not aware of anything he's done to protect the building since he's owned it," Herbert said. "By his failure to act, he's caused the building to be uninhabitable."
City inspectors have cited Dugas for code violations. A 2009 court order called for the building's demolition.
Dugas said the city isn't interested in preserving it.
"The face they've been putting on to save it is not genuine," Dugas said. "They've been after the building for many, many years. "
Herbert said the city will bill Dugas if it tears down the building, about $64,000 plus asbestos removal.
Dugas said he's contacting demolition companies to do it for him. He said the land will be a temporary parking lot for the summer. After that, he wants to construct a building with retail stores on the first floor and "work force housing" above.
"Where are your bus boys, your waiters and your valets going to live?" he asked.
He said he's also working with local developers to possibly build a "boutique hotel" on the site.
"We'd like to save the historic facade," Dugas said.
Aaron Applegate, (757) 222-5122, aaron.applegate@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
bring back the jester
Wasn't 17th Street Jester located in that building, too?
Lack of Soul in 1988, No Different Today, Perhaps a Bit Worse
Found an editorial penned to the Beacon in 1988. It dealt with development along the resort area that was focused on seasonal visitors and not on daily local users. Observations of CoVB actions then are in many ways the same scenes today. We want your money, but not you. What we offer to you is glitzy and flash, but sterile with no substance or soul. Not that the building in question is that much of an asset to the resort area, but at one time it was, like Buckminster Fuller's Dome, stub street parking at the beach east of Atlantic Ave, and countless other needless assualts on the sensibilities of the citizens. Times change, needs change and like death and taxes, these are all constants in life. Other than the traffic along Pacific and other streets in the summer, what other constants are there? Ridiculous parking fees-if the tax benefits from the hilton hellion and his cohorts are indeed true, parking would be free for all locals, all year. A sense of not being welcomed but only tolerated is also a constant of daily life at the resort area. Souless/sterile/without substance, are constants also.
Redevelopment
Actually, this case shows why cities ought to be empowered by the Commonwealth to condemn property, after due process, that is not maintained by the property owner. The failure to do so, and to create an unsafe environment, effects not just this particular property, but the block and the neighborhood. Another example is the owner of property on Pacific Avenue at 32nd Street that refuses to improve her property, thereby dragging down property values in the entire area. Fact is, property owners who refuse to keep up their property should stand to lose their right to use it, and after fair and adequate compensation for its value, it ought to be redeveloped and returned to the tax rolls as a valuable asset to benefit new owners and the taxpayers.
You know nothing!
How about cities that abuse the rights of private property owners and take their property without just compensation? How about cities that refuse to issue permits to property owners to rehab their buildings so they can condemn the property, drive the value and then buy it for next to nothing like the city did to the owners of Peppers. How do you know that the city did jerk this owner around the same way? I remember that building being infested whith crack heads and prostitutes before the current owner bought it. It's cleaner down in that block now then it has been for the past 15 yrs. If your so righteous about cleaning it up why do you put your money where your mouth is and write a check?
Not sure your point
I'm not sure what your point is. The city has always had the authority to condemn properties that are a hazard.
Empower action
My point is that with the right to own property comes obligations to the community that created it. The Commonwealth has recently made it much more difficult for local governments to take action to condemn property that is not being maintained. And for me, the concept of maintenance includes as well the use of the property. That is, a property owner that essentially abandons any use of the property, but repairs it so it is not unsafe, is as guilty of contributing to blight as the person who creates a safety hazard. For example, the property cited in my first post meets that description; that is, it has been vacant and unused for 30 years. It depresses the surrounding neighborhood, reducing the value of property in the area. Again, with proper safeguards and due process, the Commonwealth should empower the City to act on our behalf.
Undeveloped Parcels North of Laskin Fiasco
I aplaud the owner of the properties north of the Laskin development area. Since achieving the valued status of an '83 com-here, those properties and the buildings have been shuttered, locked and a venue for local skateboarders. If taxes are paid and the properties maintained to some extent, the CoVB has no legitimate cause to squeeze the owner(s) to any extent for any purpose dear to the goof-ball planners in this city. Concrete and asphalt are not visionary goals, open unfettered views of the ocean and vast expanses of vegetated landscape along the ocean front are. Barren topped parking garages and goals of cloud scrapping developments are not visionary but more of the same dribble the CoVB has been spreading for decades. A visionary goal is to work with what you have and not with what will probably never be achieved given our location along this section of the coast. CoVB is a blue-collar, brown water, cul-de-sac location privledged to have a taste of the ocean and moderately clean sand. Yea, I aplaud the owner(s) of those properties that upset the tool and his buddies' vision-limited plans for CoVB.
How often does that come up?
How often does that really come up? Owning a property you're not using is a big expense and maintaining it just adds to that. I'm not sure why the owner hasn't got rid of this liability. Is there really no one that will buy it?
No
I know it seems absolutely absurd that a property owner would pay to keep an abandoned property "safe" for thirty years, and would refuse to sell to any other party at any price, but that is the situation at this location. The effect is to reduce the value of surrounding property, and to create the illusion of blight. I do not say that the City should have the right to take property for any reason, but subject to proper safeguards, and due process of law, to protect the taxpayers, the City should have the right to eminent domain and to sell the property for redevelopment. I think owners have rights and obligations, not just rights, and if they contribute to blight, the city should have the right to cure it. Frankly, the situation at 17th Street is similar yet not exactly the same. The point is, this emotional and one sided focus on rights, but not obligations, is more detrimental to taxpayers as a whole.
No
I know it seems absolutely absurd that a property owner would pay to keep an abandoned property "safe" for thirty years, and would refuse to sell to any other party at any price, but that is the situation at this location. The effect is to reduce the value of surrounding property, and to create the illusion of blight. I do not say that the City should have the right to take property for any reason, but subject to proper safeguards, and due process of law, to protect the taxpayers, the City should have the right to eminent domain and to sell the property for redevelopment. I think owners have rights and obligations, not just rights, and if they contribute to blight, the city should have the right to cure it. Frankly, the situation at 17th Street is similar yet not exactly the same. The point is, this emotional and one sided focus on rights, but not obligations, is more detrimental to taxpayers as a whole.