The old courthouse in Clarkesville has stood for more than 50 years. And for now, the building will remain there on the square after withstanding a vote that aimed to have the structure demolished earlier this week.
On Tuesday, just hours after the city of Clarkesville drafted a letter pleading for county officials to take the building down, Habersham’s Board of Commissioners came out of executive session and voted 3-2 not to demolish it.
Clarkesville Mayor Barrie Aycock said she was “disappointed” by the decision. Aycock now believes the issue has become political, she said on Thursday.
“Our desires are not being heard,” Aycock said. “I think the decision has become involved in politics, which I don’t understand. I think (commissioners) are ignoring the wishes of the city of Clarkesville and most of the residents of the county, and what (the county’s) ultimate goal is – I have no clue.”
Habersham County Commission Chairman Ty Akins, who seconded the motion to demolish the building, said he felt that was the most reasonable route after failed attempts to have a developer repurpose the site.
“I think we’ve made every effort in good faith and every intention of trying to repurpose this courthouse,” he said. “I just don’t think that’s practical. I’ve been through it. It’s in terrible shape. In my mind, that was the most responsible thing to do.”
Commissioner Dustin Mealor made the motion to approve demolition before the item was struck down.
Previous estimates for demolition have come out around $500,000. But a recent estimate – specifically a bid from demolition company Southern Environmental Services – had the cost of tearing down the building at about $190,000.
Akins, who represents Clarkesville as part of his district, noted that two developers – including Parkside Partners – have offered over $1 million for that property without the building. Parkside, the company which sought acquire the courthouse, spent more than $200,000 in earnest money to redevelop the building, but later pulled out “due to unsatisfactory title conditions.”
Dissenting votes
Despite the letter from Clarkesville and a much lower bid for demolition, the vote to bring the courthouse down failed on Tuesday.
Commissioners Bruce Palmer, Bruce Harkness and Jimmy Tench voted against demolition at the Dec. 3 special-called meeting. Two of those officials cited specific objections, though for different reasons.
Tench could not be reached for comment as to why he voted “no.”
Palmer said on Thursday that his opposition stemmed from a variety of factors.
For one, Palmer said, the county hasn’t yet “exhausted all the avenues as far as renovating the courthouse.” He also fears there’s not enough space in the Habersham County landfill for masses of rubble that would be left by the towering structure.
“I think we need to look into that a little bit longer before we make a decision to demo it,” Palmer said. “…I just think we need to exhaust all avenues before we do that.”
Palmer reiterated his belief that there’s hope for the weathered building – which he described as “structurally sound.” With some enhancements to the facade, Palmer is confident a developer can transform its visual appeal and issues with its interior.
“I really do think there’s someone out there who can renovate it and make it something – that not only benefit Habersham County and the city of Clarkesville – but maybe makes it a draw for people to come downtown. Maybe something with some retail space.”
In response to Aycock, Palmer said politics did not influence his decision. He added that, as a commissioner, his intention is not to ignore the city.
“Unfortunately, everything has become political, but my reason for voting against it didn’t have anything to do with politics,” Palmer said. “I want to do what’s best for the community in the long term.”
Like Palmer, Harkness insisted his motivation for voting “no” was not at all political.
Instead, Harkness said he hadn’t been given adequate notice a vote would be taken on the courthouse that night. The item also wasn’t on the agenda beforehand, Harkness said.
“It had never been positively told to me that we were even going to vote on it,” Harkness said. “If I don’t have enough facts or information, I’m always going to be a ‘no’ vote. This is a major deal for the taxpayers.”
Harkness said he believes a vote of that magnitude should be taken only after a public meeting inclusive of the community, Clarkesville and stakeholders – and not “behind closed doors” – is had.
“It needs to be in the open,” he said. “It needs to be in the public. On a project that big, the whole public should be invited to come and talk about it.”
What now?
Under a previous tentative agreement, Parkside Partners would’ve purchased the old courthouse and surrounding 2.07 acres for $500,000 with plans to repurpose the building for 21 luxury residential and condominium-style units that would overlook the downtown square. But, with the cost of redevelopment deemed too high, the deal fell through and Parkside terminated that agreement on Oct. 1.
Akins said commissioners had agreed on demolishing the structure about 12 months ago – even before recents talks with Parkside.
“We were on track to tear it down when Parkside jumped in,” Akins said. “…I thought this was one of the easier, non-controversial votes – because we’re just going back to where we had all agreed to be.”
Without the building, if the courthouse was torn down tomorrow, Akins said the value of the property would spike from just over $400,000 to more than $1 million.
Akins said discussions on potential demolition of the courthouse will likely resume early next year, though he’ll need to garner additional support next time around.
“It looks like I’ll need another commissioner or two to come with me,” he said. “For me, it’s not political. It’s not that I have super strong feelings one way or the other – other than (the building) is ugly…it’s not that I’ve been about tearing it down the whole time. But at this point, I think that’s the only path forward.”
