What can a community do when a property owner neglects their building to the point where it is blight on the neighborhood? The owners of 10-18 Pleasant Street have left the building in such disrepair that it is at best a nuisance to abutters and an embarrassment to the town, and at worst a threat to already threatened property values in the area.
There seem to be no villains here. I’ve never spoken to site owners Gladys and Joseph Vinograd, but those I’ve interviewed do not describe them as uncaring or unsympathetic to the effect their building has on the area. They were left the property, and judging from their actions since taking over the block on Pleasant and a residence in Brookline, they are eccentric to be sure. In fact, my understanding is that they would like the property to be a home for independent local businesses, which would be completely in sync with the town’s fight to avoid the homogenization caused by the national chain stores that have swept the country. Unfortunately, for some people there can by a vast gulf between what they would like to do and what they have the capacity to do.
There are a lot of potential heroes here. Town Administrator Mel Kleckner pulled off a minor miracle yesterday by getting almost every segment of town government, the lawyer representing the Vinograds, abutting residents and civic leaders in the same room to rationally discuss solutions. Architect John Carr donated his time to demonstrate the property’s potential. Commercial Areas Coordinator Marge Amster has worked tirelessly to improve a bad situation by building a coalition to beautify the block. Economic Development Director Kara Brewton ran the Pleasant Street meeting that was by all accounts as successful as it could have been. Local activist Linda Pehlke and other residents have worked hard to bring this situation to public light.
While the property has become an eyesore, the Vinograds have not broken the law. The laws that protect us all don’t allow government to force people to sell their property in these situations. It can’t be said by enough people that we are and should be free in this country. My impression is that this situation requires that the town do exactly what it seems to be doing, show sensitivity and compassion to the property owners while bringing all of town government to bear to pave the way for the Vinograds to do the right thing. While it’s necessary to sternly insist that no public safety ordinances are violated, there is nothing the owners of the property have to do just because we all think the building is unsightly.
This is a strange situation. Normally a community has to deal with overly ambitious carpetbaggers who want nothing more than to overdevelop a property to generate the last cent of profit, the neighborhood be dammed. It’s not often that we deal with people who appear immobilized by ownership to the point that, while doing nothing illegal, are unable correct their neglect of the situation.
I believe the town should do more of what it is doing. We need to make it easier than easy for the owners to rehab or redevelop the block. The Vinograd’s lawyer, Attorney Alan Kramer appears to be encouraging his clients to do the right thing, but he even admits that he lost communication with him at some point and just recently regained it. He needs all the help he can get. If there are any zoning regulations that need to be addressed to make this property work commercially, they should be addressed now to eliminate any potential roadblocks. If the Vinograds hopefully team up with a responsible developer, we need to make sure the permitting process is not overly onerous to discourage the owners from locking their doors and taking their phone off the hook.
Sometimes the strength of a community can be judged by its sensitivity to those that need help. The help the Vinograds need is not common to most, but we are all different as are our stories and our situations.
R. Harvey Bravman, Publisher
