Town of Pulaski eyes 17 unsafe structures

By WILLIAM PAINE
Patriot Publishing
Tuesday’s meeting of the Pulaski Town Council was dominated by discussions of dilapidated structures and what to do about them. Vice Mayor Brooks Dawson led the meeting as Mayor Shannon Collins was absent.
Code Enforcement Officer Carla Hodge and Acting Building Official Nathan Smythers told town leaders that 17 houses within town limits were determined to be unsafe and that they should be demolished at the earliest opportunity.
According to the Town code, a structure is deemed unsafe if: “The structure is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, structurally unsafe, or of such faulty construction or unstable foundation that partial or complete collapse is likely.”
Hodge gave council a brief summery on how a property is condemned, which starts with a complaint, often made by a neighbor, about the poor condition of the structure.
Smythers then inspects the property and documents what he finds with photographs. Building officials will notify the property owner about code violations and the owner will be given 14 days to get in compliance. If there is no corrective action, additional steps will be taken involving legal means, to demolish the building.
Town Manager Todd Day expressed his intentions to acquire these 17 unsafe structures through court actions or negotiations with the owners and then demolish those structures, so these properties may be available for new development. The average cost to demolish a structure is $15,000. Demolishing all 17 buildings on the list would cost approximately $268,000.
“Our objective is to address blight in the community,” said Town Manager Day. “We call it Project Revitalize and I’ve budgeted $150,000 in tax dollars to do that this year.”
Councilman Joel Burchett expressed his support for this program, noting that many of those who voted for him in the last election were particularly concerned about dilapidated properties in town.
Councilman Steven Erickson then asked, “It’s going to take $267,000 to demolish these properties … where does the money come from? I’d hate to think we couldn’t get a new dump truck or police cruiser because we spent a quarter-million dollars on tearing houses down.”
Day countered by saying that once these properties are cleared, new homes could be built there, which would provide more tax base for the Town, a situation he described as a “win, win.”
“The only solution is to grow the community tax base,” said Day. “If you find the property owner, odds are they’ll just give it to you … or maybe we negotiate waiving the taxes that ain’t gonna’ get paid anyway. Ultimately, we want a new home on that property. That’s the main goal.”
“It is an obligation to our citizens,” said Vice Mayor Brooks Dawson in reference to the unsafe structures in town. “It can’t be looked at as a frivolous expense. It’s part of the work that we do … It needs to be part of our responsibility. We have to do everything we can do to fix those 17 unsafe structures and if it requires money, we’ve got to find that money somehow to accomplish that.”
Austin Painter of the town’s Engineering Department updated council on the Streetscape Project, which is ongoing at West Main Street between Washington and Jefferson Avenues.
“Our goal with this project is to provide as much support to our community through rejuvenation and repair of our Main Street to support pedestrians, increase the transportation viability of the downtown through pedestrian access and to support the businesses by re-doing the aesthetics of our Streetscape,” said Painter.
The Streetscape Project will replace all existing sidewalks and crosswalks on this stretch of West Main Street. The project also includes planting four Gingko trees and placing several streetlights along the way. According to Painter, the streetlights will cost approximately $100,000 and should be ready for installation after work on the sidewalks is completed, adding that these streetlights are similar to those seen in downtown Wytheville.
Erickson asked why there was a sign indicating that West Main Street was a potentially dangerous construction zone, even though businesses on West Main are open for business. Painter indicated that this sign was required by state regulations.
Both Day and Painter emphasized that businesses are open on West Main Street even as construction continues. A sign reading “Pardon our Progress, Step Carefully, Shop Confidently” attempts to make this plain to passersby.
Town Council voted to table the supplemental funding request made by a representative of the Fine Arts Center for the NRV, so that the issue could be discussed in next week’s work session. Council will likely vote on this funding request at the March 18 meeting.
Building inspectors found 64 vacant structures in town. These structures are often on properties that require town crews to mow the grass on a regular basis, which costs the town money.


March 10, 2025 @ 9:37 pm
It would be nice to get rid of the unsafe and ugly places. It could brighten up the town.
March 11, 2025 @ 10:24 am
The structures should come down,
March 11, 2025 @ 2:39 pm
There’s 2 on Pierce Avenue that should be checked. As you turn on to Pierce Avenue off of Dora Highway, there’s a big white building on the right that used be used as a house. And just a few houses up on the right there is a house that is boarded up. Both of these are eyesores on Pierce.
March 11, 2025 @ 3:42 pm
it’s not just houses. What about the ugly buildings through out the town that are beyond repair. I get it you want to redo them preserve history but some are beyond repair. Pulaski has got to quit living in the past and move forward..
March 11, 2025 @ 8:51 pm
checkout Skyline Circle by where the old bowling alley used to be ! all the downstairs rooms are boarded up and shut tight. water runs brown there
March 12, 2025 @ 3:05 am
Lol at Erickson comment. It’s always about more cop cars! Tearing down those buildings will do more for Pulaski than a shiny new police car.
March 12, 2025 @ 8:58 am
All of Pulaski needs to be torn down. The whole town is a dumpster.
March 12, 2025 @ 5:03 pm
this is my opinion…I believe that instead of spending that much money on demolishing the houses in town why not fix them up if possible. and the old street lights are fine. you know I think is so sad the way this town a town I once was proud to say that the community looked out for one other help one other …. spending money to tore down houses and rebuild a new house is the most ridiculous thing I have heard . and reading the town’s intention it makes me sad because you fix those house like the one I was kicked out of because if dumb reasons when the house itself wasn’t not a unsafe structure. ..like fix those houses would cost a lot less and it would help get some of the homeless people some that are disabled some have children. And my thoughts on a property owner just giving their property away …well I for one would NOT do no such thing just so the town could raise the town base taxes. there is so too many houses sitting empty and nothing is wrong with them . and boarded up for stupid reasons and more and more people are left with no place to go and homeless. what happened to helping thou neighbor or looking at for one other. that the way you build a community. not by spending money to demolish houses to just rebuild new ones that no one can afford because town and county taxes are so high. stop being so greedy.
March 12, 2025 @ 6:47 pm
Coleman building looks terrible Pulaski furniture building stands out
March 13, 2025 @ 9:01 am
Jessica, it would cost much, more money to “fix” those rotten houses than to tear them down. The structures targeted for destruction need a bulldozer, period.
This has nothing to do with greed. You say stop spending money to tear them down, but just rebuild. Tearing down 17 decomposing structures will cost less than building 1 or 2 new ones. That is a fact. Also, it’s not so unusual for a property owner to allow a town to take ownership of a piece or property. Especially if the cost to repair far succeeds the cost to repair or tear it down themselves. If you lived next door to one of these homes with the mice, rats, wasps, raccoons, and goodness knows what else keeping permanent residence there (not to mention the eye sore) you’d feel differently.
March 13, 2025 @ 10:19 am
In response to the commenter who suggested renovating instead:
The town’s plan to demolish these structures for $268,000 is significantly more cost-effective than renovation, which could exceed $850,000. Asbestos abatement alone can cost up to $25 per square foot, totaling $37,500 for a 1,500 sq. ft. home if asbestos is present. Renovations must also bring homes up to modern building codes, including International Building Code, NFPA, and state regulations, requiring costly upgrades.
Structural repairs include foundation fixes ranging from $4,000 to $25,000, roof replacements from $7,000 to $15,000, and load-bearing wall reinforcements. Systems upgrades involve electrical rewiring costing between $5,000 and $15,000, plumbing updates between $10,000 and $30,000, and HVAC replacements between $7,000 and $15,000. Fire and safety compliance requires updating exits, installing fire-rated materials, and ensuring proper ventilation according to current fire and safety codes.
TLDR; Older structures often make renovation significantly costlier than demolition and rebuilding.
March 13, 2025 @ 6:17 pm
Safety Pro, I’m going to bet your estimate of $850k is actually on the low end ;>] I’ll add in mold issues, rodent/bat/insect infestations, tree removals in some of these no doubt. I’m pleased some of those eyesores are going away soon.
For those wondering why other old homes weren’t targeted first don’t forget these are in danger of literal collapse.