Sides drawn on sale of Slidell motel

By Erik Sanzenbach
St. Tammany News
Published on Monday, January 26, 2009 8:40 AM CST



Will it be a long or short stay for the Long Stay Motel in Olde Towne Slidell?

The answer may be decided at next Tuesday’s City Council meeting when the council will vote on whether or not to allow Mayor Ben Morris to negotiate a deal to buy the motel for the city. The mayor is asking the council to let him spend $1.35 million for the motel, which has been appraised at $1.4 million

The Olde Towne Task Force will be at the meeting pleading the case along with Morris to buy the hotel. On the other side are council members, who believe buying the Long Stay Motel is financially foolish

Despite the debate, both sides do agree on one thing — the motel is an eyesore and it should not be in Olde Towne.

Members of the Olde Towne Task Force, whose main task is to revitalize Olde Towne, claim that the motel doesn’t belong on Second Street. Not only does it not fit into the architecture and ambiance of Olde Towne, but the motel poses a safety threat to the area, because of crime.

The task force also believe the motel is a hindrance to the economic growth of Olde Towne, which is the biggest reason they would like to see the motel bought and razed.

Most on the council just think the price is way too high.

“The price is a major sticking point,” said Council President Richard Hursey. “With all we have to do, $1.35 million is hard to swallow.”

However, Morris and the Olde Towne Task Force point to the $6 million surplus in the budget, and say there is more than enough money.

The council say the surplus is needed elsewhere such as road and drainage repairs, plus some of the surplus should be kept in reserve in case of emergencies.

“If we spend the money on the motel, we may not have enough to spend on other more important things,” said Councilman at large Landon Cusimano.

For example there is the construction of the new City Hall complex on Second Street. Morris announced the first municipal building will start construction at the end of the month. The building is partially financed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and they city is putting up $2.9 million to construct the $4.25 million structure.

There is a second municipal building in the works, and Council Administrator Tom Reeves said that FEMA will not put any money up for the construction, and the city might need the $1.3 million to pay for the construction.

“Buying the Olde Towne motel at an inflated price driven somewhat by FEMA subsidies would leave us way short of completing the rebuilding to properly house all of our employees,” Councilman Ray Canada said.

But Brenda Case, chair of the Economic Development Committee for the Olde Towne Task Force said the two municipal buildings are exactly why the city should buy the motel,

“Once the buildings are there, we are going to have a severe parking problem,” Case said.

She and others have suggested that if the city buys the motel, it be demolished for a parking lot. “It will be a problem that has to be solved,” Case said.

But Canada sees other projects like the Slidell Senior Center that take precedence. “I firmly believe that rebuilding and restoring services to the seniors is a higher priority than a parking lot costing over $1.5 million,” he said.

Two council members who are leaning toward the purchase think the best time to buy is now.

“I don’t feel it [the motel] is worth $1.35 million, but I don’t think it will get any cheaper in the future,” Councilman Bill Borchert said. “The best opportunity is to buy now.”

Council member Kim Harbison agreed saying it is the best thing to do to revitalize Olde Towne.

Case said she does not want to be an adversary on the issue, and wants a peaceful resolution, but she sees the purchase as good for the city in the long run.

“They look at it as a strictly financial issue,” Case said. “We’re trying to boost economic development and the motel is a hindrance to that.”

There is another aspect of the deal that doesn’t sit right with some council members. They agree the motel is a thorn in their side, but does this mean the government should get involved?

“Do we go and buy up property just because we don’t like the business? That is not a good policy,” Hursey said.


Comments

5 comment(s)

    K wrote on Jan 29, 2009 10:18 PM:

    " Especially interesting that our assessor put the value at $177,000 in determining the property taxes for '08, a minor increase from 173,000 the previous year. "

    4REAL wrote on Jan 28, 2009 10:59 AM:

    " LIKE EVERYONE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT GOES ON THERE??? ALSO, THAT IS AN AWFUL LARGE AMOUNT OF $ FOR THAT LOT THOUGH... "

    christy wrote on Jan 26, 2009 3:16 PM:

    " I agree with cusimano & canada. Sounds like our mayor has been spending time with New Orleans mayor Nagin. He too spent funds foolishly and when Katrina hit he dident have the money he should have to help his citizens. "

    Eddie Fogg wrote on Jan 26, 2009 11:39 AM:

    " When was the 1.45 mil apprasial done on this property. If it was before the latest economic downturn, the current apprasial should be 30% less or 1.015 mil. Given the current state of the economy, it may not be prudent for the city to speculate on it's future value. Why not present the current owner a business case to tear it down themselves and build a parking lot. "

    InTheMiddle wrote on Jan 26, 2009 11:00 AM:

    " I am in the middle on this one. That much money for a lot. But in the long run I agree there will be parking issues. It was before the storm. I guess the best approach is to look forward in future and think about the service and parking requirements. A parking garage like the one at SMH could be built on the site. There is no other area for additional parking. The council could authorize a lessor not to exceed amount too and see if money really talks. "

WRITE A COMMENT

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. They review submitted comments periodically during the day for offensive or off-topic content before posting. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The St. Tammany News is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
* Personal Information (phone numbers, addresses, etc.)

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in thesttammanynews.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the St. Tammany News. The St. Tammany News does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized St. Tammany News spokespersons.

Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

(optional)
Current Word Count: