Our“friendly” staff writer, Ed Richter’s front page article in theSunday, 9/10/2017, Journal News, is headlined second only to the epichurricane Irma. He has a prominent spot to essentially praise thecity for their “solution” in dealing with a problem bar. Thearticle attempts to explain how the city is doing “the rightthing.” But if you read between the lines, you will see they aregoing about it the wrong way! Ed and City Hall have had a lot ofpractice at this.

Readthe article and the comments inserted in red.

Citywill buy problem bar — and demolish it

Middletownwill spend $35K in federal grant money to buy Bar Boca.

MIDDLETOWN— Middletown officials have come up with a solution in dealing witha bar that has become a neighborhood nuisance and a drain on publicsafety resources: Buy it, then demolish it. Middletown will spend$35,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant funds topurchase Bar Boca, 124 Charles St. Purchasing and demolishing thebuilding will prevent it from being re-used as a bar, said CityManager Doug Adkins. “Thisbuilding has no good use,” he said. A future use for the propertyhas not yet been determined.

Thecity hassaid it wantsout of the real estate business, right?

Middletownpolice Lt. Jimmy Cunningham, who negotiated the purchase deal withproperty owner Charles Napier, said the decision was “huge.”“We’reable to eliminate a problem and save the city thousands of dollars inthe long run and save some lives,” he said. “The neighborhoodsigned petitions to get rid of the bar because of all the problems.”

Therehave been 80 calls for service to Bar Boca in the past eight months,according to Cunningham. He said since 2008, there have been 230calls for service to that bar under different owners. He said in thepast several months there have been numerous calls for feloniousassaults, shots fired, public disturbance, weapons complaints,assault and violation of liquor laws.

Thecity has nuisance ordinance that are quite stringent, but were notused in this case of serious and numerous violations.

Cunninghamsaid the costs to send police officers to the bar on a call forservice or to investigate a crime at the bar takes away resourcesfrom the rest of the city. He said depending on the type of call,it could require multiple officers to respond. If there is an injuryand medics are called, that only increases the costs in terms ofpersonnel, vehicle and other costs.

“We’vespent a substantial amount of money due to the existence of thisbar,” he said. Due to the violation of liquor laws and numerousother incidents, Kyle Fuchs, community revitalization director, saidpolice met with the operators of the bar and attempted to get theminto compliance with local and state laws to no avail.

The“attempts” by the city and police andFuchs toget the bar into compliance, involving a number of different barbusinesses over an extended period of time certainly seemshalf-hearted. Thecity couldhave saved money by enforcing the law years ago.

Asa result, the property owner agreed to sell the building to the city.

Sooo, the property owner isonly too happy to have the city buy his property, be relieved of anyfinancial responsibility andwalk away with money in hand. Howmany othernuisance properties hasthe city purchasedin this manner?

Cunninghamsaid it’s difficult and costly for the city to build a solidnuisance case to close a bar because it takes a significant amount oftime. The courts need an overwhelming amount of evidence before ajudge will take away a person’s livelihood.

Thecity and the courts only had 9 years (since 2008, as stated above) tobuild a solid nuisance case. And 230 calls for service during thattime was not overwhelming enough for the city to take action??? Whyis the city buying and tearing down this building, (thus losing moretax base), when it should be the owner’s responsibility? Doesthere seem to be some special consideration here?

“Weare delighted that things were able to be worked out the way theywere,” said Joe Ruscigno, project director for M&J Hospitality,the company that owned the Bar Boca business. “We agree with thecity.” Ruscigno added that there probably shouldn’t have been aliquor establishment located in the neighborhood.

Yes,wouldn’t you be delighted as the owner/operatorof a nuisance bar business to leave with yourliquor licenseintact andnofines levied? IfRuscigno thought this location was not appropriate for a bar, why washis business established there? Question: Isn’t there another bar nearby in that neighborhood?

“We’reall excited about it,” resident Ronnie Perkins said of the planneddemolition. “We think it’s a great thing the city is buying it.Ever since they extended that bar, there have been problems.”Perkins,who has lived across the street from the bar for the past 26 years,went around the neighborhood getting residents to sign a petition forthe city to take action.

Notethat theworddemolition isnot part of the quotation of Mr Perkins. He only talks about thecity’s purchase.

“Iwas here first,” he said. “I’m not leaving.”Perkins said hehas cameras all aroundhis home in case someone damages his property.“Theother thing homeowners don’t know is that their property valueshave gone up without the bar,” he said. “Our homes are worth$5,000 to $10,000 more with the bar gone.”

Awoman who lives on North Avenue near the bar said it was nice to sitout in her backyard at night again. The woman, who declined to beidentified for fear of retaliation, said she hasn’t seen anyneedles or broken beer bottles in a nearby alley since the barclosed. “Theprostitution has also slowed down big time,” she said.

Theonly upside to this action is …. thataction was taken tothe satisfaction of the neighborhood. It should have taken placeyears ago and not at the cost ofthe city (misuseofCDBG funds, IMO). Demolitionhas been the city’s solution to mostproblemspresented and called it revitalization. Whatfollows demolition is loss of property tax base and anothermaintenance problem which costs the city more money. Mr Adkins hasrepeatedly requested more funds to maintain “empty lots ofrevitalization” all over town.

BarBoca marks the second time a bar in that location was shut down bythe city.

Miller’sLounge closed in 2014 after repeated nuisance violations, policesaid. Cunningham said before that, it was known as the Pinkk Pantherbar. It has also been known as the Office Bar and Git R Done.

Lastweek’s vote on the Bar Boca purchase passed unanimously, withCouncilman Steve Bohannon abstaining.

Councilshoved this through on emergency legislation with Adkins’ promptingeven though there was citizen protest and questions. No reason forBohanon’s abstaining was given. Shouldn’t he have explained anddoes it have any bearing on reasons for the city to buy the bar?

Contactthis reporter at

513-755-5067or email

Ed.Richter@coxinc.com.

The legislation to purchase Boca-Bar was passed underwhat might be false pretenses concerning the supposed blightedcondition of the building. The real problem was the business not thebuilding its self. Adkins has successfully gone under the radaragain.

Cunningham’s “testimony” that the building hada blocked in window in the front did not qualify the property asblighted. It appears there have been no work orders or issues aboutthe condition of the building! BUT, in order to use CDBG funds topurchase it, the building had to be DECLARED blight (TRUE OR NOT) tocomply with the rules. THEN, the CDBG rules also require that blightbe removed, so the building has to be torn down unnecessarily inorder to obtain CDBG funds. This may not be illegal but that doesn’tmake it right. What will become of a lot that size? Will the cityhave to mow it forever or are there other plans for it?

Adkins has mastered all the ways and means ofcircumventing and bending rules and regulations. It is note worthythat this invariably occurs under “emergency legislation” so thatno one has an opportunity to object or even ask a question beforeit’s a done deal. CDBG funds have been among the most frequenttopics on council’s agenda for years. Have Council members evermade any effort to familiarize themselves with the important issue ofCDBG rules and regulations in order to form their own opinion ratherthan take someone elses (Mr Adkins’) word for this or any otherissue for that matter??

Whena questionis put to Mr Adkins, City Council Members, orany spokes person from the city’sbureaucracy, perhapswe should, for each occurrence orcouncil meeting, require themto take the sameoath to which a witness must swear incourt, “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but thetruth!!!!

After all, incouncil meetings theyhave essentially gagged and blindfoldedthe tax payer by ignoring the “sunshine law” andtaking items into “executive session” that should be subject topublic scrutiny. They double talk togovernment agencies and get “free money” whichthey canthenredirectfor their own purposes under anydesired “emergency legislation.” Emergency legislation is thetool of choice from the bag of dirtytricks used to side step the sunshinelaw and citizen input.