NORTHWOOD – City Administrator Bob Anderson
responded Wednesday to assertions from a lawyer for owners of the Woodville Mall that the city is blocking
the site’s demolition."We would like to have the owner tear it down," said Anderson.The Woodville
Mall has been closed since February, 2012, following an injunction filed by the city and the Wood County
Health District concerning the dilapidated condition of the structure. A court order issued in August
ordered that the mall be demolished, setting a final day of May 2, 2014, as well as other milestone
deadlines.Late Tuesday night Adam G. Burke, lawyer for mall owners Ohio Plaza Shopping Center LLC, issued a
press release questioning the city’s claims about the demolition of the property "and its candor with
the public."Among the assertions were that Anderson had told reporters that owners had missed filing
deadlines for demolition plans, and that the plans did not address demolition.Burke, on a related website,
included links to the original demolition plan which, he said, was submitted on-time and included "the
demolition details required by the court."A close reading of a news story linked by Burke, as well as a
Sentinel-Tribune story on the same topic, shows that Anderson stated the plan was submitted on time.Anderson
said Wednesday that the submitted plan consisted only of five sentences, and said "as far as
technically, they’ve kind of complied with some of the court orders.""From my standpoint, it’s
mostly been excuses and ‘Hey, we’ll do this,’" he said.As to allegations that Anderson and City
Attorney Brian Ballenger ignored emails and calls from Burke, Anderson said "he keeps asking the same
questions over and over and over again," and said that communications with Burke are now left with
Ballenger."I don’t have the authority to just let them (the owners) do whatever they want to do,"
Anderson said."We want to work with the owner. We don’t have any ownership right per say (to the site).
If we did, we’d have to go back to court and ask a judge to say we could do anything. We have a lien on the
property but that’s about it.""I would say honestly that we’re just following our
ordinances," Anderson said, adding that he is open to "serious discussion" with the
owners.Among those ordinances is one that requires the posting of a compliance bond of twice the estimated
demolition costs when a building is to be torn down. That ordinance, he said, was passed by city council in
recent years."One of the questions that does arise, and it’s a legitimate question, is who determines
the demolition costs," said Anderson. He said that the City Engineer currently sets such costs, taking
into account square footage, as well as the asbestos to be cleaned up – which Anderson said is expected to
be considerable.Burke had decried the bond – which he put at $1.7 million and said was not in the court
order – saying the city is using it, and other actions, as a means to block the demolition and undertake a
"land grab" of the property.Anderson said that ordinance seeks to make sure that the city and,
more importantly, the taxpayers "don’t get stuck with the cleanup bill."