Times Observer photo by Ann-Marie Gariepy A vacant storefront at 231-237 Pennsylvania Ave. W. is pictured. The city is accepting proposals for new development while, at the same time, accepting bids to demolish part of the site it says is creating public safety concerns.

A group of Warren residents is interested in putting together a development proposal for 231-237 Pennsylvania Ave. E. if they can pull together support before the buildings are demolished.

At a recent Warren Redevelopment Authority meeting, David Winans, one of those interested in the properties at 231-237 Pennsylvania Avenue East, said he had been provided access to enter the properties the previous day. Winans went on to say it was his understanding that there is an open Request for Proposal (RFP) for Redevelopment as well as an open Demolition Bid Notice of the properties. Both are true.

In accordance with the terms of an October 2024 agreement, the property located at 231-237 Pennsylvania Avenue W. was returned to the Redevelopment Authority. Since that time, the authority has had multiple discussions regarding the property and the deteriorated structures located on it.

During its regular meeting on August 27, the full board voted unanimously to proceed with demolition of the structures due to public safety concerns. As indicated in the Demolition Bid Notice, the contractor will be required to salvage the identified historical elements and provide them to the city. Bids for demolition of the structures remain open until October 15, 2025, while redevelopment proposals are being accepted through December 31, 2025.

“Yesterday we had an architect as well as a contractor that went through the building,” said Winans, who questions whether the facade of the historical buildings can be preserved for another project. “The conflict between these two is odd. No matter what happens, is that building going to be destroyed? It seems contrary to your (the RDA’s) request.”

Winans said there is funding available, and a group of city residents want to put a request for proposals together for redevelopment of the property.

Questioning who deemed the structure unsound, gallery member Ron Peterson continued his public comment by requesting an extension for RFP of the property.

“We had our professionals in there yesterday and yes, it can be saved. We’ll probably lose the back wall and the flooring but the two walls and the facade are intact and can be utilized.” Peterson said. “We do have significant funding. I’ve got $50,000 to explore developing that property to start with. What I’m respectfully asking for is a little more time. The reason for our delay is that I didn’t have anyone to manage the property. Now I have someone who’s interested (in managing) the property.”

Peterson said he needs time to put together a thoughtful proposal for the property. While Peterson said he would he would like six months to piece the proposal together, he said he’d take any extension the RDA members were willing to give.

“I’m not here to waste anybody’s time,” said Peterson, “I’m a very busy man myself. Time is money and I’m not here to waste your time or my time. I think it could transform our downtown.”

Leaning heavily on the lack of structural soundness of the properties and the liability of any further delays, RDA members were unwilling to give Peterson a six-month delay. Referring to the situation as a “Catch-22” it was pointed out that requests for proposals to redevelop the property would be accepted until Dec. 31. The demolition request for proposals, though, is a problem for Peterson and his group despite a one-week extension proposed by RDA members.

“Now I’m painted into a corner. That’s three weeks. We were talking a month and now we’re going backward. Come on guys. Cooperate.”

Even if Peterson were to submit his proposal by the proposed extension Oct. 22, it would remain sealed until bidding was closed on December 31st.

“Significant work has been done on this,” Winans said. “There are architect renderings, drawings and half the stuff has already been done for this proposed project. It’s not like starting from zero on design. It’s just a matter of putting together something.”

Randy Rossey, city director of codes and planning, reiterated to RDA members that the request for proposals to redevelop has been out for months and has been discussed at several RDA meetings.

“This RFP has been out since February,” Rossey said. “The RDA has been trying to get someone to develop it.”

Attempting to understand the time frames of both open bids Peterson said, “So I will be spending tens of thousands of dollars on market studies and business plans etc with the uncertainty of it just being flushed down the toilet. I’m looking for cooperation guys. Come on. We all live here.”

Rossey countered by saying, “It’s nothing about cooperation. There are rules that have to be followed. You cannot favor another group. You can’t be shown favoritism because you’re a home town group.”