A Bureaucrat Speaks

The city's top administrative official sits down for a twelve minute video interview.

A recent video produced by Dayton 24/7 Now, which is making its way around the internet, featured a twelve-minute in-depth discussion with Patrick Titterington, the city’s Director of Service and Safety. You can watch the video here.

The conversation began with the interviewer probing the financial repercussions for taxpayers stemming from the shutting down of West Main Street linked to the prolonged issues with the Tavern Building. Mr. Titterington confirmed that the cost incurred since the beginning of the year was indeed $64,000, citing ongoing legal battles and court rulings as factors necessitating these additional expenses.

When the conversation turned to the community's concerns regarding the spending that seemed excessive, Mr. Titterington did not shy away from recognizing the financial strain on taxpayers and tried to make the argument that these expenses were preventative actions against potential lawsuits and further costs. The city has taken a stance of vigilance, prioritizing safety, particularly around the controversial building, which has been the focal point of numerous inspections and legal proceedings, ultimately leading to the closure of the 100 block of West Main Street since late June.

The focus then shifted to the saga of the Tavern Building itself. Mr. Titterington explained that after varying opinions from different engineers, discussions unfolded between the property owner and the city about the building’s potential donation and redevelopment. The city delved into the specifics of the repairs needed to ease legal orders and facilitate redevelopment. Yet, new inspections uncovered graver structural issues, which led the chief building official (CBO) and a structural engineer to advise demolition.

With the CBO’s counsel pointing to the immediate danger of imminent collapse, the city shouldered the responsibility of closing the street to protect the public—a decision that has surpassed 18 weeks and adversely affected local commerce.

The current stance is that the street closure will persist either until the demolition of the building is executed or until the CBO withdraws his directive—both scenarios appearing more and more unlikely. Mr. Titterington detailed the city’s efforts to alleviate the situation, including consistent weekly updates on social media, legal maneuvers to progress towards a solution, and bolstering downtown businesses with marketing and event assistance.

Tackling the effects on local businesses, especially with the holiday season on the horizon, Mr. Titterington defended the city's strategies to support them, albeit not through direct monetary aid. He reasoned that the complexity in determining the scope and causes of business losses, coupled with the possible tax implications, steered the city to opt for other strategies like better parking facilities, easing some regulations, and promotional support.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Titterington reflected on the protracted and intricate nature of the legal proceedings, acknowledging the case’s uniqueness and the frustrations it has caused. He emphasized that adhering to the CBO’s legal advice was perhaps the only pathway to a resolution.

Reflecting on the Interview

A notable aspect of this interview was the absence of any elected city officials; instead, the full 12 minutes were dedicated to a dialogue with the city's leading administrative officer. Given the significance of the issue at hand—the complex situation surrounding the building at 112-118 West Main Street, which represents one of the most daunting challenges the community has faced in generations—some argue that it would be more appropriate to hear from elected representatives during such challenging times rather than from appointed officials.

The interview thoroughly delineated the city’s position regarding the ongoing Tavern Building issue. The city has adopted a practical, safety-first, and legally compliant approach. Nonetheless, the discussion revealed various contentious points warranting further examination:

Communication and Transparency: The city's efforts to keep the populace informed with weekly updates is laudable, yet the monotonous nature of these communications may be losing their significance among residents. A strategic approach to clear and direct communication, offering a breakdown of events and their direct impact, could enhance public comprehension and patience with the ongoing process.

Financial Stewardship: Despite the transparency regarding financial aspects, there are concerns about cost-effectiveness and the potential for a more economically prudent approach.

Business Impact: The substantial impact on local businesses cannot be overlooked, and the city’s hesitation to provide direct compensation raises questions about the sufficiency and creativity of their support initiatives. Could a specialized fund, supported by the city and local businesses, be established for such exceptional circumstances?

Legal Process and Time Frame: The city appears constrained by the legal process, a common situation in similar cases. However, the expressed uncertainty over the duration and complexity of the litigation could indicate a potential lack of foresight.

Community Involvement: The discussion did not touch on community involvement in the decision-making process. The extent of the city's efforts to actively seek the opinions of the affected stakeholders remains unclear. Encouraging community participation could lead to better understanding and cooperative solutions.

Expert Opinion Discrepancies: Conflicting views from different engineers and experts on the state of the building highlight concerns about the city’s decision-making process. Opting for the most cautious advice has led to the road closure and the financial repercussions that followed. Engaging a broader panel of experts or seeking a second opinion could have presented less disruptive alternatives.

Implications for Our Hometown

The situation outlined has broad implications for the community. The protracted road closure not only drains financial resources but also tests the patience and resilience of the community. Local businesses, critical to the area's economic health, are at a pivotal juncture, particularly entering the holiday season—a crucial sales period which, if unsuccessful, could lead to closures and long-term economic instability downtown. Taxpayers are feeling the burden of the city's legal entanglements, potentially eroding public trust in municipal governance. This incident could lead to a reevaluation of municipal policies concerning building inspections, litigation, and emergency response strategies.

To sum up, while the city's measures are legally sound and prioritize safety, the interview underscores areas for improvement in communication, fiscal responsibility, and public engagement. This challenging situation calls for innovative solutions that strike a balance between public safety, economic vitality, taxpayer interests, and property owners' rights.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter. Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors and consider supporting our efforts by either being a paid or free subscriber. You can read past newsletter posts at www.civiccapacity.com.