UPDATE: Demolition Denied
The Saint Paul Historic Preservation Commission had a meeting on Monday afternoon to decide whether to approve or deny the Burger Moe’s application to demo the Justus Ramsey house. If you ever thought that city council meeting would be boring, than you are wrong!
Ok, well not totally wrong. The first part was a little boring as they read through the committee’s report and findings and reported the proposal by the committee to DENY the demo permit. That was pretty dry, but then it was time to hear from both the applicant (Moe) and then anyone from the public who wished to speak.
Moe’s lawyer, Brian Alton spoke first. In my opinion, he did not do Moe any favors. First he tried to say that the demo permit had already been approved by default because of delays, that they had to approve or deny the permit within 60 days. But, on file in the minutes from the previous meeting is a request from Mr. Alton to delay determination INDEFINITELY. You can’t have it both ways, sir.
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Second, the lawyer claimed that to repair or restore the Justus Ramsey house would cost $535,000 just for the four walls and a roof. Does that sound a little high to you? I’ll come back to that.
Third, he made a vague reference to a recent decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Minneapolis that “found that it was unreasonable for the city to deny a permit for demolition of a historic structure that had been condemned by the city.” I think he is referring to the case involving Demolition of First Church of Christ Scientist. However, he seems to be mischaracterizing the judgment. In that case, a developer had bought the historic church and submitted a plan to temporarily shore up the structure and “mothball” it until a detailed rehabilitation plan could be made to turn it into apartments or offices. Shortly after, an interior wall on the property collapsed and the owner filed for a demolition permit because the rehabilitation plan was no longer feasible - but the Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) denied the demolition.
The owner appealed and the appellate court did agree that the CPED decision was “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious”. Moe’s lawyer seemed to think that the ruling meant that it was unreasonable for the CPED to deny the demo permit - but in actuality, the ruling only meant that their DECISION MAKING PROCESS was unreasonable because it did not follow the HPC’s own criteria for decision making regarding the demolition of historic properties. They failed to take into account “The economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses.”While the owner presented detailed and significant evidence of the building's deterioration and the high cost of rehabilitation, the CPED staff only provided conjecture and opinions. They failed to acknowledge that the “possible” alternative uses for the building would have the same rehabilitation costs but would provide substantially lower financial return.
That is not what the St. Paul HPC is doing. They have clearly evaluated structural engineering reports, from FIVE separate sources, as well as taken into account the findings of the City Inspector and followed their own structured criteria in decision making. And it’s not going to fly in Moe’s case. The stone house has a history of providing financial return. Previous owners used it as an exterior bar and station for wait staff. It only adds to his business to incorporate it and use it. As columnist and radio host Joe Soucheray noted during his show on December 8th, “I don’t understand for the life of me why he wouldn’t turn that into a draw, into an attraction.”
If you need a recap of why the Justus Ramsey house is such a hot button issue and historically valuable, read my previous post: The Justus Ramsey House
Back to the meeting. Next up, was Moe himself. There’s no video of the meeting, but there is audio. (If you want to hear the clips, watch my Instagram Reel HERE). Moe’s testimony was pretty emotional. He seemed very defensive. “Am I a bad guy? Am I a criminal here?”
Moe has been a solid business owner in Saint Paul for 34 years and that is something to be commended. Restaurant ownership isn’t easy and I’m sure it was hard for his two restaurants to survive the pandemic. He has also been involved in charitable efforts and the community for decades. It was a little sad to hear him feel personally attacked but I gotta say, he kind of deserves it and I’ll explain why in a minute.
Most of the members of the public who offered their testimony were from various historical preservation committees and boards throughout the Saint Paul area. Only one person stood up to testify in support of Moe. Basically all of the public testimony boiled down to two points:
One point for Moe, made by a young man named Miguel who works at one of Moe’s restaurants: “Times change, people move on”. Quickly countered by one point from Gibson Stanton on the preservation side: “History matters, this structure matters. We have not moved on.” Several more people on the preservation side offered real support for working with Moe to save the Stone House, either on site or by moving it, and backed it up with real funds that are available for that purpose if Moe would just come to the table. As Meg Duhr from the Fort Road Federation pleaded, “Step up and work with us.”
That leads me back to why Moe feels personally attacked. Jim Sazevich, a Minnesota historian and a founding member of the Historic Preservation Commission, said the thing that everyone was thinking. “The damage you saw in the pictures and in the reports was intentional damage to the structure. You don’t have to read between the lines to see that.”
FIVE separate structural engineers were brought in to inspect the Justus Ramsey house and evaluate its ability to be repaired or rehabilitated. Three reports were commissioned by Moe himself. One said simply that the building condition is not suitable for repair. The second actually quoted the report from the engineer hired by the city and encouraged Moe to work with the HPC to find a solution, particularly solutions involving moving the stone house off-site and that it could be done. The third is the most interesting because remember when I said Moe’s lawyer, Mr. Brown, testified that it would cost $535K to restore and rebuild? Well, in a letter directly to Mr. Brown, the 3rd engineer suggested that removal would cost $42K, storage would cost $11K, and rebuilding would cost $79K (depending on the final design requirements). 42 + 11 + 79 = $132K. Where did $535K come from?
You don’t even have to read the reports to read between the lines. You can just read between the pictures.
How does this kind of damage happen in just 11 years? Why are all of the interior finishes stripped? Why is the drywall gone? Why are roof beams missing? Why are there holes punched in the roof with no sign of rot? Why is the mortar on the exterior of the building holding up just fine, but the walls on the interior are caving in? Why is a chimney that never gets used falling apart?
And that’s why Moe feels personally attacked - because everyone believes that he intentionally did this damage. He wants the stone house gone. But why? Why would Moe go to such lengths to remove the stone house if it only gets him four more tables on his patio? Well, Elyse Jensen put it into perspective: “Moe has made no secret that he’s wanted to develop this site for years, he’s mined all the land around it on this block, we’ve even heard rumors that people have seen plans.”
West Seventh is one of the fastest growing neighborhoods in the twin cities. Ever since the Schmidt Brewery was converted in 2015, more and more projects have been popping up. Moe only has to look across the street at Cossetta’s to see the possibilities of what could be on his property. Getting rid of the stone house is just one step towards his goal. If he can get rid of the stone house, he doesn’t have to submit a Section 106 Review to pursue federal funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
What Moe doesn’t seem to get is that if he was just honest with the HPC and honest with the public about his goals, they would still be - just as they are now - willing to work with him to find a solution.
In the end, his application was denied. It was denied so that the required studies of the structure can be done and so that there is time for community organizations to AGAIN try to meet with Moe. Maybe now that he has heard that there is real money to be offered, he will take them up on it.
