Update on Nov. 14 at 8 p.m.: You may have noticed some recent edits. We were having technical difficulties that are now resolved. We appreciate your patience.
Anyone interested in the free historic Tisdale House and the purchase of the subdivided lots located at the 1300 block of Rhem Avenue have five business days to research and submit a proposal to the New Bern Preservation Foundation (NBPF).
The house needs to be moved because it sits on the same tract of land where the new Stanley White Recreation Center will be constructed, and the City of New Bern needs to clear the land to make room for the center.
The city initially advertised the house for free to the public in late spring. New Bern Now published the press release on June 3.
The City of New Bern changed their terms of conditions for the “free” Tisdale House. It’s still free, but the buyer will be responsible for all expenses involved with moving the house and purchasing the new property. See the new requirements on the city’s website.
The property’s market value is $45,000. The land has been subdivided, but the Craven County GIS tax records do not reflect the size, nor list the appraised value.
The Tisdale House needed to be moved. Instead of demolishing it, the board agreed to give the house away.
The New Bern Board of Aldermen (BOA) has had many lengthy discussions about the Tisdale House since March, so we will do our best to summarize conversations.
The idea of packaging the Tisdale House and the Rhem Avenue property came from Former Alderman Sabrina Bengel during the March 22 BOA meeting. She said that she had been in talks with the NBPF to try to save the house. She said they inquired about moving it and searched for land where the house could go and stated, “The only piece of land we could come up with was the lot that sits behind development services…Rhem Avenue…it’s that big green space that’s there that’s actually two lots the house will fit on the lots there…We haven’t had anything, no takers, we have no takers for a dollar…so preservation stepped in.”
Also on March 22, Former Alderman Jeffrey Odham said, “I think we’ve we have failed, we haven’t done a good job at marketing it. I think if you put a sign out front…free dollar house…see if you get any takers. It would be well worth a couple hundred dollars to do that.”
On April 12, the city attorney updated the BOA about the possibility of packaging the Tisdale House and Rhem Avenue location, saying, “There are some larger trees, ancient trees there that may be a practical problem in getting the house on that site without having to remove one or more of those grand trees which leads to political issues. I know Alderman Bengal is going to reach out to that community to take their temperature on the relocation, keeping the trees…potentially losing a tree or two. And then speaking with…the immediate neighbors to see how that may play with them because this would be a change. And as you know we’re all for progress but we’re not so much for change.”
That same meeting, Jeffrey Odham asked to put a sign up to let the public know the house is free to whoever wants it. He also asked, “How do we market it?” Hughes responded, “Development Services marketed it. I’m sure it was on the city’s webpage.” The board unanimously passed a motion to put up a sign.
The City Manager told the board on May 24, “We can open this up to the highest bidder which we have already done. No one took advantage of that. However, we can give the house to a non-profit who has experience and specializes in historic preservation, so we’ve spoken with the preservation foundation, and they’re interested in the project”.
Also on May 24, Odham said, “I thought that we had a pretty robust discussion on this. That there was going to be a sign in front of it. Free to whoever wants it. Here’s the phone number. Are we waiting to get all of this governmental red tape together before we can put a sign up there that says that? So, where’s the sign?” Hughes replied, “That will probably be up by Thursday this week.” Odham responded, “So we’re at least a month since we’ve had this discussion. So, I don’t understand why the sign’s not up, but maybe that’s just me.”
On Aug. 9, Forner Alderman Odham asked City Attorney M. Scott Davis, “This house has to go to the Preservation Foundation? Yes, it does if we want restrictions on the property, I suspect you do.”
During the Nov. 8 meeting, Alderman Rick Prill told the board that the NBPF had received two proposals from individuals who have the means to successfully move the house to a new location.
He raised concerns with the requirements that were placed on anyone that wanted to potentially submit a proposal. One of the conditions was that the proposal had to demonstrate that the potential owner had control over a lot where the house would be moved.
Rick Prill said, “During the intervening time frame there was another avenue being pursued by the city. That being that the city would provide or could provide a lot for the house to be moved to and then let the preservation foundation work with the entity that they felt was the most likely to be able to succeed with this project with the city’s terms and conditions. One of those that being the entity had to be in control of a lot that’s been changed or modified from the applicant presenting a lot to the city now has made a lot available. I raised the concern that because that’s what I felt was a significant enough change that we might need to step back and re-advertise the process to make sure that there aren’t any other entities out there who wanted to submit a proposal but chose not to because they did not have a lot that they had control of. But given that the city is providing a lot, then they might be interested. So, I’m raising that as a potential concern and whether or not the board shares in that concern…”
Davis responded, “The detour was that late in that process. The preservation foundation, despite the other parties having identified some lots, preferred that the city subdivided a lot on Rhem street. That was a preference from the preservation foundation. That’s what caused the board to pivot…The reason you would do that is that is the only local entity that allows the city to sell the property for fair market value while putting restrictions on the property that require the house to be constructed there and forever maintained on that property in its historic condition. So legally we are always going to convey the house and or the lot to the preservation foundation. The advertisement process was to drum up interest so that applicants could then approach the preservation foundation with their hopes, dreams and ideas and resources to rehab the house.”
Attorney Davis continued, “Alderman Prill raises a good point and it’s more of a political point and a fairness point…given the current facts at the time that’s exactly what the board wanted to do but the vision has now broadened to include a lot that was not in play at that time so I’m comfortable on the legal side that procedurally we’re going to be conveying that lot to the preservation foundation. However, politically as a matter of fairness do you feel that your constituents and anybody else had fair notice that there’s a different deal, I don’t know the answer to that question.”
The city manager told the board the contract is proposed to be on the next agenda. Hughes said, “So there is a couple weeks here so there is an opportunity if the board wanted to advertise something there’s at least several weeks to get that word out.”
In case you’re wondering, New Bern Now listened to every meeting and read the minutes by the city clerk but did not find any indication the board made a decision to package the Rhem Avenue property with the Tisdale House.
We requested comment from members of the Board of Aldermen, City Manager, and City Attorney at 7:23.
Questions or comments? Send us an email.
By Wendy Card, Editor