×

Some questions for land bank

To the editor:

Recently, the administration of the Jefferson County Land Bank was transferred from the Regional Planning Commission to the county treasurer’s office. The original stated reason for the land bank board decision (and approved by county Commissioners Dave Maple and Thomas Graham and county Treasurer Ray Agresta) was that the RPC failed to properly vett a new demolition contractor (Whitehawk Industries.) At the time of the RPC board’s recommendation to approve Whitehawk, the contractor was in good standing with the state and was doing work for the city of Steubenville. Rumors of a silent Whitehawk partner, a Mike Riley, previously implicated in various Ohio EPA infractions, were nothing but rumors at that time. It is illegal to discriminate against a contractor based on hearsay and since Whitehawk was the low bidder, we recommended to the land bank board that they be tried out on a set of six demolitions.

The board was presented with these recommendations and approved the contract awards. As the administrator, I felt this was a low-risk approach since the contractor is never paid a dime until they present all required documentation that shows that they finished the work, followed all Ohio EPA standards, paid their subcontractors and their work was approved by our inspectors.

Subsequently, Whitehawk failed to complete its first two demolitions. In Bergholz, they demolished a property without first remediating hazardous materials. This clear Ohio EPA violation was immediately reported by me to the Ohio EPA. I informed Whitehawk that it would not be paid for this demolition. In Steubenville, Whitehawk demolished a property but caused damage to the adjacent property and never completed the repairs. As to the last four demolition contracts, Whitehawk agreed to allow the land bank to cancel the contract and transfer the demolitions to another contractor. Subsequently, the owner of Whitehawk, who was in failing health, closed his business and a week later died.

Before Whitehawk, our demolition record was clean. And it remained clean. Whitehawk was never paid a dime for these two demolitions. Although the land bank is out some costs associated with these two properties, the land bank has the financial resources to absorb these costs. Further, profits from our house rehabilitation program and oil and gas lease program more than offset these costs. Both programs were instituted by me in my first year as land bank administrator.

So, why did the land bank board go to the extreme measure of canceling the administration contract between RPC and the land bank? Was it really because of the “failure” to properly vett the demolition contractor Whitehawk as stated in the press? I contend that the real decision to remove the RPC from land bank administration was made months earlier, in December 2017, and that the real reasons are based on control, fear of change and politics. I will address each of these contentions in subsequent letters to the editor. Stay tuned.

Martin Sohovich

Former RPC director and

Land bank administrator

Mingo Junction

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today