Jordan Atkin lied. He lied to these two men; he lied to the press about not being the owner (he is); he lied to the demolition contractor. He will pay. Big time. Time for accountability.

@tomhenry897

2 ай бұрын

No he won’t

@mattp.7002

Ай бұрын

He’ll declare bankruptcy and get off Scott free. Then, just like a turd that you can’t flush, resurface with a new company running new unethical, dishonest and illegal business practices. I’ll bet he was going to build some horrible cheaply built, mega expensive high rise apartment/condo building with some ugly cheap looking architecture.

@nightlightabcd

Ай бұрын

This is the US, there is less and less accountability now! One can even encourage and support a coup and get away with it. One can even threaten this nation with civil war and get away with it! States can rig elections and get away with it. Fascist, anti-American, pro-Russian propagandist can even support Russia's invasion of a county, after country, fighting for freedom and democracy and get away with it! When a man like Trump can win the election, the writing is on the wall, America is dying,

The current owner, Jordan Atkin, should be required to restore the building to pristine condition and then sell it to the perspective buyers at the previously agreed price. With regards to the question of "Can it be restored?" If they can restore the burned Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris then they can restore the Fifth Ward Meetinghouse.

@jetuber

2 ай бұрын

Obviously it can be restored. It's just a matter of $, which the owner who illegally ordered the demolition must pay in full.

@thefix2573

2 ай бұрын

Hardly comparable. Some Cult brick shack compared to a Marvel of Engineering.

@Bonjour-World

2 ай бұрын

@@thefix2573 You think that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT a cult ?

@peterbonaccorsi3445

2 ай бұрын

@@Bonjour-World C'mon guy, stop with all your b/s drama.

@Bonjour-World

2 ай бұрын

@@peterbonaccorsi3445 What BS ??? My name is NOT Donald Trump.

The owner was probably pissed off knowing the destruction team didn't knock it down in a day

So, reading between the lines, the plan was to knock it down, cry "oopsie" when the city found a rubble heap, pay a nominal fine, then redevelop it into whatever these guys wanted to build it into. But the demolition got halted before everything got knocked down, so now everyone is pointing fingers at each other and trying to shift the blame, and the property owner is going to pay through the nose for his little scam.

If the owner was in the process of selling the place, why spend money to demo it?

@amandagardner565

Ай бұрын

he wanted the sale to fall through, and the vacant land would have sold for a hell of a lot more to someone else. he was hoping to pass it all off as an OPPSY that shouldn't have happened, but the demolition was stopped before the entire building was gone.

@journeyoflovelight

Ай бұрын

@@amandagardner565 Thank you.. this makes sense.

@amandagardner565

Ай бұрын

@@journeyoflovelight you are welcome, as all the police shows always say, follow the money. it's a heritage listed site, which usually SEVERELY limits the value and potential market, i'd bet the planned sale was for pocket change, and some developer may have suggested what it might be worth as a vacant block.

@weltonvillegal6258

Ай бұрын

@@amandagardner565- Bingo

@pepethepatriot7524

Ай бұрын

@@amandagardner565 I think you meant "Oopsy"

How's this for a punishment? He has to restore the building to what it was before. And he has to do this via phone calls & emails while sitting in jail. And he can't leave jail until the work is done. Then he has to donate the building to the two men he had previously agreed to sell it to. Then banned from any new development projects in the city for life.

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

You're one of those law and order types. The ones that make shit up for others to follow but never for you. It was his property to do with as he wished.

@Shaker626

Ай бұрын

@@Look_What_You_Did Federal law prohibits you from wishing to defraud people. He lied to the prospective buyers.

@bagamnan9170

Ай бұрын

@@Look_What_You_Did oh really then how come the city said "do you have a permit" if that was the case?

City Council put big fines damage old building with historic buildings and if not done there more fines and jail time.

I see it this way. if the building is abled to be rebuilt. the current owner should have to forfeit the building as a fine, He did not follow the proper procedure for an Historic Building. the building should be sold to the 2 men for $100 Let them rebuild the historic building and let it be done. Or ,it will play out in court for years. The building will sit and rot. and then some squatter will come along and burn it down and now no one has anything. Just my Opinion.

fine is only 200 a day, the owner can tie all this up in lawsuits that span a decade

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

His property to do with as he liked. Permits were issued.

@poollife777

2 ай бұрын

​@@Look_What_You_Didthen you know nothing about this story. The state gave him a permit to demolish but the permit was for him to prove there would be no health issues. After that he is supposed to go to the city. That is the law because he bought an historic place but that's the law anyway. You obviously don't own anything.

@bensmith4563

Ай бұрын

​@poollife777 if you have to have a permit to do something on your property you don't actually own it the tyrants own it

@vg23air

Ай бұрын

@@bensmith4563 well, in virginia only the property owner can ride atv's on their own property without helmet, so there is that too

@vg23air

Ай бұрын

@@bensmith4563 between imminent domain and property taxes, you are only occupying the land until they say otherwise

Watch them just tear it down fully after saying it has a "safety hazard" smh, it won't surprise me if the national historic register system is later removed so that greedy developers can destroy every historic building left in this country, regardless of signifigance or importance.

Only a small portion of a front section room was demolished, it can be restored

the owner was going to build an apartment bld on the land ,but the old bld was in the way plain and simple.

How in all the verses of the multiverse do you, as a developer, not know you cannot just demolish historical sites?

@pepethepatriot7524

Ай бұрын

He knew, he just didn't care.

The weird thing to me is that it would have been so easy for the owner to just torch the place one night and then blame it on rotting wiring or vagrants or whatever. Or, do some strategic weakening of the roof trusses and then wait for a heavy snowstorm. Why do this in such an easily traceable way?

@tomhenry897

2 ай бұрын

Because won’t get into any trouble

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

@@tomhenry897 It was permitted... How slow are you people?

@MichaelDavis-cy4ok

Ай бұрын

Amateur hour, I guess?

@HobbyOrganist

Ай бұрын

That's what was done to a historic church in NY City, it was abandoned when the tiny congregation couldnt afford to repair the roof despite getting all kinds of money from different sources to do that, and then a few years later a developer wanted to buy the property and suddenly the church laid claim to owning it again so they could sell it! but the building was landmarked, and on either side were new condos, so one night a kid was seen running out and a fire going on right then, the building burned, roof collapsed, bricks on the sidewalk, and it had to be demolished, of course the church now can SELL the property they ABANDONED and walked away from years before, and collect millions tax free leaving the city to pay for the fire dept costs and all the rest. That should be illegal- both coming back to claim ownership years after ABANDONING it to vandals and the elements costing the city money for police and fire protection, and then swooping in and SELLING it for millions tax free.

Somebody messed up, somebody is going to lose their job, and someone is going to pay a lot of money to fix this.

Did they signed an agreement to buy the property? Did they close on it? If they hadn't closed on it they should ask for their deposit back and walk away. Owner's problem.

@JimDean002

Ай бұрын

That's correct. At the end of the day, if you haven't closed on the property you don't own the property. I would say they've got a case for some damages if they've spent money getting ready for whatever they were going to do but that's about it

The City should also look at the approval that was given to demolish the building. The paperwork clearly states the order to demolish so a approved permit must have been issued then the City is at fault too.

What legal obligation did the current owner of the building have to keeping the building in its previous condition?

@shandilworth2823

Ай бұрын

It was a protected structure

@ImprovmanZero

Ай бұрын

By law the city hall must approve any work done on a historical site

I've lived long enough to know that the current owner won't pay because "justice" socks

The state or city should seize the building for what that depraved, sleazy lunatic did to the property knowing full well he was breaking the law...

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

Oh yeah? You support a government that can seize property at will? Hold on... You've never owned property have you...

I don't get it. if he's selling it why tear it down?

@shandilworth2823

Ай бұрын

So the deal falls through and he can sell clear land for way more

@theyrekrnations8990

Ай бұрын

@@shandilworth2823 is that for real? I mean, it is just for profit?

A horrible mess! 😔

Who owns the building?

Did they get red flags from city or title company.

I don't think what people understanding is that Jordan Akin is still the owner of the property which gives him the Legal right to do what he wants with it. Yes he should be held accountable for not getting permits,but until the sales are final it's his to do with what he wants.

A reputable contractor would have known there wasn't a permit(check with the permit division-not the owner) and refused to do the work.

Call Mitt, he's a big business man in Mormon Land!

The prospective buyers look like such a nice couple. Hopefully, their dreams can be saved.

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

Not in UT. They better leave while they can.

@argusfleibeit1165

Ай бұрын

@@Look_What_You_Did This was probably the motive for this action. The owner didn't want them making a community center for their community. And real estate law makes it illegal to discriminate. So, destroy the whole thing. How ugly can people be?

I normally feel sympathy for the property owner in these types of cases frequently because it's just an honest mistake, but it looks like here the fair thing to do is to make the property owner own up to the full extent of the preservation law, which means he'll have to pay to have the part of the building that was damaged during the destruction to be fully restored. Ultimately the building needs to be looked at to see if it can continue to be used for events or if it needs to be condemned, but it looks like the property owner tried to rip it down for an easy check from a developer. 👺

@stickynorth

2 ай бұрын

Make him pay to restore it or seize it. Either way that developer has no morals or character...

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

You clowns conveniently ignore the fact the very same government provided all the permitting.

If they would've been wearing their MMU, this could've been prevented.

Saying this is the only news source where you can see this news is a now generic thing to say to create viewer interest, but here, I sense this story is so local and small no-one else wants to run it.

were they told that no children were hurt there?

Building will not be repaired . Its been damaged by machinery and will cost too much . Time to move on with a new plan .

🤔 why do they not name the ‘owner’ ?

@Stargate-over-starwars

Ай бұрын

Liability

Guess the motive

Oh BS. Unless there was an offer on the table there were no "plans".

Although I totally agree with the husband and husband. But ignorance of the law is not accepted in a court of law. They were betrayed but they also didn't make sure their ducks were in a row and merely went off of the old... well he said. That is not the law. Everyone is claiming ignorance all the sudden to cover their A$$'s.

Yes he knew. No he won’t. And never. Chapter 11, and walks off into the sunset.

might I suggest the old owner decided his sacred meeting house was not going to be turned into a disco.

LDS TOLD A LIE.... NO

My understanding of "meeting houses" is - that they can only be used for that purpose, & if they cease to be used for that purpose, then they must be deconsecrated and demolished. [From a Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints ward president friend of mine.]

@randolphfriend8260

Ай бұрын

It's a church thing.

@Nidkidful

Ай бұрын

Church doctrine does not trump law.

This is what you get when you deal with false churches. God has one church and his church is called the holy church not Mormon not 7th Day Adventist not Catholic not Islam

If only you people cared about the word of God as much as this building.

Oh boy. Exclusive. Only us. Look at us. We are the only ones that have dirt. Sounds like a bunch of crap from everyone.

Maybe the owner figured out they were going to turn it into a soyboybar and couldn't bear the thought. Oh, the sacrilege! ;-)

Don’t care

They were in on it

The one in the dark shirt runs a crappy improv group that performs in a gay bar every Friday. I’m sure they had great vision for this building. 😂

Why does the story not name the owner? It's a matter of public record. Plus he deserves public shame.

@hailutahistan3680

2 ай бұрын

The news story should have identified the owner. That's not my job

Looks like this was going to be a gay bar. Not sure which is worse for an LDS historical building.

@HerMajesty1

2 ай бұрын

Lol

@MsFitz134

2 ай бұрын

It was already a goth nightclub and a Buddhist temple. If you sell a building, you don't get to choose how it's used decades in the future.

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

@@MsFitz134 Oh yeah? Because that is exactly what the government is doing.

The owner is a GOOD Mormon! Brigham Young was a LAIR TOO!

I feel worse for them because they are gay in st lake city

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

They made their bed... they can sleep in it.

They don't want any alphabet club! LMAO!!!

I get obtaining a permit to do the demolition, given the noise and safety issues and whatnot, but being told you have to rebuild something that you own on your own property is bullshit. If the city or the community wanted to ensure it wasn't ever demolished, then they should have purchased it from the current owner. I'm not saying the owner isn't a liar or a dirtbag; maybe he is, but he should still be allowed to do whatever the F he wants with shit he owns on his own property.

@nnelg8139

Ай бұрын

The city's law protected the building, and he should've known that when he bought the property.

The alphabet's always acts entitled. Lol

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

MAGA

OWNER = Do what they want with it. if the state wanted to keep it they should have paid the bills ie the taxes, repairs etc. Not saying it's right but he is the OWNER, you people forget this is America, It's his not ours to determine what he does with his property.

@priscillawagner6205

Ай бұрын

Unless that property is under historical protection, which this one is

"Prospective buyers" had "Plans" to open a "gay bar"..haha Planning... then acts like he's been put out hahaha

@NDcompetitiveshooter

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, didn't hear any mention of a purchase agreement being signed. There could be all kinds of people who thought about or discussed buying it. Doesn't make this any of their business.

@neeksor

2 ай бұрын

professional victims

It was still his property right? He hadn't sold it yet. Can't you do what you want to do to your own property

IF YOUR NOT THE OWNER YOU SHOULD NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL. ITS NOT YOURS. NEXT TIME YOU BUY IT , IF YOU WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS.

@poollife777

2 ай бұрын

You are a total immature person who has to scream by using Capital letters. You have to scream because what you're saying is wrong and your feelings don't count. It's his house yes but when he bought it he made a guarantee to the city that he would keep the historical building as it was and maintain it. That's why he got it for such a great price. Even if it wasn't you can't just do anything to your own damn property without permission. You don't know that because you are a child.

It's easy to demand that others spend their money to fix the building so others can enjoy it. Everyone it's so upset about this building. Get a go fund me account, buy it and give it to the town. I'm sure the owner would be open to offers.

@stickynorth

2 ай бұрын

All they had to do was FOLLOW THE LAW. Stop justifying the excuses of the evil, greedy and stupid. After all ye shall be judged by the company you keep... I guess we know which side of the aisle YOU'RE ON and it doesn't look good...

@stickynorth

2 ай бұрын

The owner should have his asset seized after breaking the law...

@jetuber

2 ай бұрын

He literally had buyers ready to purchase it. If he didn't want the building upkeep, he shouldn't have bought it in the first place. No one held a gun to his head to do so. It was his own choice.

@Look_What_You_Did

2 ай бұрын

@@stickynorth You mean obtain a permit... and commence the work per the permit... You're not very bright.

@poollife777

2 ай бұрын

​@@Look_What_You_Didwhat in the heck are you trying to say he did not have a permit from the city to demolish the home. He had a permit from the state which shows that he would follow the health standards after that he was supposed to go to the city but he did not because when he bought the place he agreed to maintain it and not tear it down because it's a historical landmark. Why don't you grow up.

A Fantasy Religion is some how special.

If the building is so historic why is it not owned by the Mormon Church?