SBHA: Funds needed to refurbish Stonewall Jackson

By FRANCISCO E. JIMENEZ
Staff Writer
reporter@sbnewspaper.com

Stonewall Jackson

San Benito’s historic Stonewall Jackson Hotel is pictured weeks before the building’s owner closed it down last fall. (Staff photo)

The San Benito Housing Authority has successfully purchased the historic Stonewall Jackson building, but not much else has developed thus far.

What’s the holdup? Money.

“At this time, we are looking for financial resources that will allow us to modernize the building,” said SBHA Executive Director Arnold Padilla.

Want the whole story? Pick up a copy of the June 30 edition of the San Benito News, or subscribe to our E-Edition by clicking here.

Permanent link to this article: https://www.sbnewspaper.com/2013/06/28/sbha-funds-needed-to-refurbish-stonewall-jackson/

13 comments

Skip to comment form

    • joevette on July 23, 2013 at 3:38 am
    • Reply

    knock down this dump and stop wasting city funds fix the streets

    • Juan on July 1, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    • Reply

    Well,I guess when the “Rangers” get the school board,et al, rounded up, their next “gig” will be the SBHA,got to start somewhere.This is about to put shame to the Parr’s in Duval County,and their legend,go greyhounds!

    • WeThePeople on July 1, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    • Reply

    Just for clarification, the San Benito Housing Authority monies are Federal dollars coming from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). There are two different types of rental subsidies, tenant-based and project-based programs. Both programs have similar income-based admission requirements set by HUD. Households with a tenant-based subsidy have a voucher that allows them to move from one place to another. Those in the project-based programs live in a building in which the units are subsidized. If a tenant moves from the building, they lose their rental subsidy. Generally, those in the project-based programs and some tenant-based programs for special populations are referred by various agencies and building owners to the Housing Authority, which confirms that they meet all the Section 8 eligibility requirements. Households on the Housing Voucher tenant-based program come from the Housing Authority’s long waiting list of applicants, (which by SBHA’s own public admission is excessive).
    Again the SBHA mission states: Promote self-reliance and enhance the quality of life to low-income families by providing safe, decent, affordable housing and empowerment training; Working collaboratively with local, state, and federal agencies; and Complying with laws and regulations applicable to this housing authority. Again… Does the purchase of the Stonewall fit in with their mission here? Without a plan?
    Where did the monies come from?? Since SBHA’s funding is virtually 100% from these Federal dollars that are restricted to only certain activities, I wonder if HUD is on board with the Stonewall purchase?
    I smell trouble brewing.

      • Reform San Benito on July 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm
      • Reply

      Apparently, according to Padilla quoted in another news publication in April, SBHA has formed some new “public facilities corporation.” It’s clear, though, the city is every bit involved and behind the project. How freaking convenient they should run off the former owners then get involved.

      Who was the guy who lit the fire on the third floor, opening the door for the FD? Hmmmm. Wonder if there’s a connection?

      (4/6/2013)

      Padilla said the agency’s new public facilities corporation will try to raise money from within the community to fund the three-story building’s multimillion-dollar renovation.

      “We thought we could assist the community in saving a historical building with aesthetic quality,” Padilla said of the proposed purchase.

      The study by PSI Engineering found the building to be “structurally sound with concrete beams,” Padilla said.

      Renovations of the entire building would cost about $3.4 million, including the elevator.

      Housing Authority Commissioner Victor Treviño said the project would save a San Benito icon that opened in 1927, calling it, “extremely important for the community.”

      Housing Authority Commissioner Shirley Vega, … is now pleased to see the city buy it. What??!! THE CITY BUY IT???

      “I look forward to seeing the end result,” she said.

      Sounds to me the conspiracy runs deep.

  1. Stonewall Jackson a museum? Instead of a section 8 housing community? Any other ideas where we can raise money to pay back what tax payer monies were spent?

    • Juan on June 30, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    • Reply

    All Mr. Padilla needs is to get the fugitive Central American sex offender back to ram rod the operation,he has the experience,knows the lay of the land,and I’ll bet even knows all the players involved,a real can-do greyhound.

    • WeThePeople on June 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    • Reply

    Incorporate the museums in the Stonewall? Having knowledge of both sides of that equation: Hell Will Freeze Over First!

  2. REFORM SAN BENITO you are correct about the Stonewall Jackson. Sounds like the CITY OFFICIALS committed some kind of illegal act that should be investigated. The CITY OFFICIALS INTIMIDATED Mr. Cuevas into selling making him believe his building was not sound and a DANGER to all. Now all of a sudden the STONEWALL MEETS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTUAL REVIEWS. To me the CITYMANAGER, ASSISTANT CITYMANAGER AND CODE ENFORCEMENT should be brought up on CHARGES. Mr. CUEVAS SHOULD SUE all the CITY OFFICIAL INVOLVED.

    • Reform San Benito on June 29, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    • Reply

    This community, where people are struggling just to make ends meet; where city administrators cannot provide basics like drivable roads, affordable water and competent cops; where our elected officials at the city and school board would rather spend money outside the community at Rancho Viejo, San Diego and Dallas; where our school trustees would rather spend $3,600/week to fund an unnecessary superintendent rather than admit Mr. Limon did nothing wrong; where the EDC is buying properties, like funeral homes, without a viable plan for its use; where we spend our energies and focus on building monuments to the past rather than looking to the future. This community cannot afford to spend money on another reclamation project simply because yet another special interest group needs office space.

    With all due respect to you, Mr. Padilla – who, I believe, is a decent, if not honorable, man — you need to go outside this community for money. You and your group need to bring an influx of money into this community to salvage your vision, not compete with and prey upon the locals for what limited funds exist here. This community is tapped out. This community cannot prosper and grow feeding off itself funding special interest reclamation projects and projects that contribute little or nothing to its future growth.

    Don’t get me wrong, I have a great appreciation for history. SB has a rich history that rightfully should be acknowledged, appreciated and preserved. The Stonewall Jackson itself contributed to the rich history of this city in its heyday, as it was its social center that hosted popular musicians and travelling dignitaries’ decades ago. Decades ago. It has contributed very little recently but controversy and a possible corrupt scheme to strong-arm and defraud the owners out of their’ property.

    What is the difference between the most recent owners who purchased the property without the funds to fix it up, and the SBHA who purchased the property but without the funds to fix it up? Damn if I can tell. Aside from the backing of the city government and administrators who cleared the way and created the opportunity for the SBHA to acquire the Stonewall, I see no difference.

    Here’s a thought: I see that the EDC and Museum Committee have $1.8M to build a museum in SB, but have been told by the Architects that it’s not enough. Also read they were looking at a property across from The Heavin ResacaTrail that is for sale for $1.4M. Apparently, these two groups must have about $3M to build a museum. Why don’t these two groups pull together with the SBHA to refurbish and locate the museums at the Stonewall?

    The EDC talks about revitalizing the downtown area of SB. What better way to attract visitors there then a museum they want to build to attract visitors to SB? The SBHA wants to restore the Stonewall as a monument to the past glory days of SB — why not incorporate it as a complete and total shrine to the grand history of SB?!

    The restaurant could be reopened to service visitors; maybe the top floor as hotel rooms for our guests. The Joe Hernandez Veteran’s Memorial is within walking distance. Shops could be spruced up under a concerted effort of the EDC and the city. The city commission could pass an ordinance that plywood could only be on windows when a hurricane is imminent, and must be removed within 7 days after. That would clear out the absentee landlords and make the downtown area look a whole lot better. If landlords don’t comply, the city could drag them to court like the owners of the Stonewall and fine them into submission. Apparently that’s a very effective approach – when enforced equitably!

    These three groups could do more for this city working together than they can do apart. They can salvage a monument from the past while providing safe shelter for past artifacts. Isn’t this the objective of each of these groups? To preserve the past while attracting visitors and generating economic development?

    This city and its’ citizens, with its precious little resources already spread too thin, cannot possibly fund the SBHA’s new venture. Sorry, but no. Either invite and convince the aforementioned groups that it’s good for each of you as well as the entire community to join resources, or bring in funding from outside this community. This community cannot afford to finance another plan without a plan.

    The [mis]leaders of this community spend too much thought and effort preserving the past without thought to the future while us citizens continually hope for a better tomorrow. That is why and how this city has reached its level of stagnation. We need more than scrap metal businesses that generate more for the officials than us citizens (yes, I know). We need leaders with a shared vision in tune with us citizens, not with their own special interests.

    Having said all that, good luck in your special venture, SBHA.

    • Reform San Benito on June 29, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    • Reply

    I know it must be tiresome for some and mind-boggling for others to read my ever-expanding conspiracy theories involving our elected officials and their appointees. Hell, even I get worn out from my very own cynicism: As much as I want to believe the best of my fellow man, and do with most I encounter daily, I can not help but see nothing but evil in the current elected officials, administrators and their friends here in SB.

    Take this article about the Stonewall Jackson, for instance. SBHA Executive Director Arnold Padilla: “All of the engineering and architectural reviews were done and the building was found to be structurally sound, no environmental issues at all with the building.”

    Did the city not cite the former owners for unsafe conditions, including “cracked overhead beams?” Wasn’t the public led to believe that the building was about to fall down and the city was saving the residents there by throwing them out on the street? Now we’re told the building is “structurally sound.” How convenient!

    Didn’t the city use the full force of its’ Code Enforcement and fire departments to fine the previous owners into submission? Didn’t the city use the threats of fines up to $12,500 to get the owners to plead guilty and pay a lesser fine? The city used all its might to clear out the inhabitants and the owners. If it wasn’t for the ineffective advice from counsel, the owners might not have been intimidated into selling so fast. How opportunistic for the SBHA!

    I truly hate thinking the worst of people. But, when one considers who is sitting on the board of the SBHA and their close alliances with those in city hall and their actions in the past in support of them, combined with the way the SBHA swooped right in to purchase the building, I can’t help but see it any other way.

      • WeThePeople on June 30, 2013 at 12:27 pm
      • Reply

      Great RSB! I am happy to see that someone else picked up on this, as I see the conspiracy as well. I believe those in power at the City along with several of their minions did indeed act in concert to gain control of this property for their own purposes.
      Your point about the ‘cracked overhead beams’ is well taken, and further proof of the conspiracy. I wonder what engineering firm they used to reach this determination and if it was a firm with a structural engineering background? Or may it was one of our ‘City Engineers’, (past or present)? The beams evidently cracked between 2010 and 2012, eh?
      Opportunistic? That is an understatement. Once the full assault began on the Stonewall’s owners, I knew it was just a matter of time before they would give up and sell out. How is it that there was an interest in the property by at least 2 housing authority members, (long prior to the owners troubles)? Hmmm.
      The real dilemma now is that there is no money and no plan. Given the fact that the Reese Hotel in Harlingen renovation costs was probably somewhere north of 5 million dollars (with a well-though out business plan), there is no way that this project is viable unless the City of San Benito, (taxpayers), goes into more debt. Mark my word.
      It is troublesome that the SB Housing Authority now has an asset with no plan. Where did the money to purchase the property come from? Were these funds from SBHA? Were there any laws violated here??
      Just for the sake of argument, the SBHA mission states: Promote self-reliance and enhance the quality of life to low-income families by providing safe, decent, affordable housing and empowerment training; Working collaboratively with local, state, and federal agencies; and Complying with laws and regulations applicable to this housing authority. Does the purchase of the Stonewall fit in with their mission here?

      On another note, if the City was really serious about Code Enforcement, perhaps they should take a hard look at the downtown buildings that have been vacant for the last 25-30 years. If those buildings are not fire hazards, I don’t know what is. Who knows, with a little close inspection, they might even find a few ‘cracked beams’.

      Keep it up, RSB.

    • Juan on June 29, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    • Reply

    Yeah,looks like the “San Benito Housing Authority”,has shown it’s true colors once again.Dreams,dreams of riches for the ringleaders,not Freddy.Lets let them keep buying worthless properties till we run completely out of money.Hey guys and girls somebody has to pay for this stuff,when the music stops.

    • WeThePeople on June 29, 2013 at 11:54 am
    • Reply

    Good work boys…buy a building with no money, and no clues! Anyone that knows anything about the history of San Benito politics is very aware of the people behind this purchase, and their motivations. Hint: It has nothing to do with saving an old building. And so it goes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.