Off The Wall
On The Record
Registered Sex Offenders for Edgefield
2005 Crime Stats
& Audio Updates
PO Box 972
State and Federal
Local Political Parties
Chamber of Commerce
New York Times
New York Post
Los Angeles Times
past articles please visit our Archives
Is building purchase "lose-lose" for county taxpayers?
posted January 16, 2008
OPINION – Is the just revealed plan of
purchasing the property presently owned by J.P. Calliham worth the
$450,000 price? Maybe so, but is it the right thing to do with
insurance money? Probably not. The building owned by the county that
several county offices and the Senior Citizens Building was razed by
fire last year. The insurance settlement is reported to be over
$600,000, more than enough to rebuild the building. To protect county
assets the building should be rebuilt. Should the county also look at
buying the Calliham property? Absolutely, but shorting one asset for
another is a lose lose situation for the county taxpayer.
Rebuilding the property with a new $600,000 building would raise the
property value to at least one million dollars. By not rebuilding the
property value is greatly reduced and the county will take a loss when
the property is sold, missing out on an opportunity to have available
retail or office space available for rent or collecting on the
increased value of the property.
The county should seek to buy the Calliham property for logistical
reasons, but not by using insurance money intended to replace a county building
destroyed by fire.
With the Edgefield County Council reserving over $100,000 a year in
miscellaneous expenditures, the property could be purchased and paid
for in just six years. The near 50-year-old building would have to be
demolished, including the current warehouse, to make room for the
expansion of the jail, which would have the county pouring money into a
building they do not intend to keep intact.
That seems to be pouring good money into a bad situation when
renovations made will be destroyed when the complete occupation of the
property is final. Benefiting the contractor, not the county.
The remarks of County Council Chairman Monroe Kneece at the January 8
meeting claiming insurance would not provide enough money to rebuild
the property is obviously mistaken. Protecting the investment of county
taxpayer interests in the Church Street property should also be first
and foremost on the minds of our county leaders.
Chairman Kneece and Administrator Pettigrew remained largely evasive
and unresponsive as to future plans of the Church Street property. This
leaves questions open as to why and who may be interested in the
property for development purposes.
We agree that the county should move forward on the purchase of the
Calliham property, but not by devaluing property that is not only
desirable but also prime for development.
Rebuild the building and then sell the property at a profit, not a
loss. It seems the county is trying to pull a bait and switch with a
good idea shielding a really bad idea. In the end, the taxpayer loses
in both propositions.
original material is property of
EdgefieldDaily.com and cannot be reproduced, rewritten or redistributed
without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com
We still need recipes for Cooking Section
WEBNEWS – Send in your favorite or
favorites. There is no limit to the number of recipes you can send in.
With the Editor’s wife being the driving force behind her own personal
section, help her create an exchange of local favorites, home cooking,
grilling, sauces, and deserts! Send in your submissions here.