STAMFORD—The Mountain Eagle interviewed Stamford Village Mayor Rob Schneider, asking him to address some of the concerns that Stamford residents posted on Facebook following the collapse of 60-64 Main Street. Here are six critical questions focused on the Village’s history with the property, its owner, and future safety protocols.

1, Following the first fire in December 2023, what specific code violations were

identified at 60-64 Main Street, and what formal steps did the Village take to

ensure the owner remediated those hazards?

The buildings were condemned immediately after the fire and the village expected the owners to raze them. Inna Sobel stepped in, purchased the damaged buildings for $1,000 each, thus relieving the now prior owners of the responsibility to demolish them. Ms. Sobel told the building's owners that she would restore them rather than raze them. While this was possible the cost would have been well into the millions of dollars and the village had no expectation of it ever happening. 

2, Given the building’s deteriorating state over the last two years, why was it

allowed to remain in a condition that led to a public collapse rather than being

declared an immediate public safety hazard or undergoing an emergency

demolition earlier?

The village was prepared to raze the buildings and was moving forward when the new owner, Wally, went to court and successfully obtained a stay from Judge Burns in Delhi. This allowed Wally to demonstrate to the village that he had the ability and financing to restore the buildings. The village codes officer was never convinced this would happen largely due to the estimated cost and severity of the fire damage. Wally, through his attorney in Schenectady, repeatedly brought the issue back to court. Despite repeated requests for engineered plans and architect-stamped drawings none of this material was ever delivered to our codes officer. Wally's obvious intent was just to delay any action. By keeping the issue before the court Wally demonstrated that he was working on the restoration of the buildings. If the village moved forward with demolition in that setting, we couldn't guarantee assigning the demolition cost to the property owner. Essentially we would have risked giving Wally a clean building lot at no cost to him. This was a risk the Trustees and I could not take on behalf of village tax payers.

3. What has been the nature of the Village’s communication with the property

owner (Waled) regarding their responsibility to stabilize the structure, and have

any fines or legal actions been initiated against them for failing to maintain a safe

building?

The village has repeatedly tried to get Wally moving forward on the project. His original application to the planning board timed out and his subsequent applications have been incomplete and late. As previously stated, none of the documents the village requested have materialized, supporting our assumption that Wally never intended to restore the buildings. Our codes officer has brought this issue before the Town of Stamford court several times. 

4. Who will bear the financial burden of the cleanup and the demolition of the

remaining structure—the Village taxpayers or the property owner?

The village will cover the cost of the demolition and send the bill to the property owner. We do not anticipate reimbursement, in all likelihood we will foreclose on the property. As you know the village offered to purchase the buildings from Wally. Grant money is available to municipalities for the demolition of blighted buildings, but only if the municipality owns those properties. No funds are available to demolish private property. This would have relieved the village of the burden of borrowing $346.000.00 but Wally repeatedly rejected this proposal. 

5. In light of this collapse, what changes has the Village made or is the Village

making to its code enforcement protocols to ensure that other unsafe buildings

are not a threat to residents?

The village codes have not been changed and in most settings are adequate.

6. Facebook and community forums are filled with speculation and not-so-factual

comments. How does Village government recommend that its constituents keep

themselves informed about the status of derelict properties and the progress of

remediation efforts and other Village matters?

Social media is not a reliable source of information. Keyboard scholars are never well informed and only do a disservice to the community. The anonymity provided by such media only emboldens would-be authorities on all subjects. The village hall is open five days a week. Contacting the appropriate individual would be a better way to get accurate information about  issues the village is dealing with.