Hotel Stonewall Jackson, located in the vicinity of 220 E. Stenger, is shown above during the first night of the 23rd annual Narciso Martinez Cultural Arts Center Conjunto Festival. The police tape was used for traffic control during the three-day celebration.
(Staff photo by Jacob Lopez)
By MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ
Managing Editor
editor@sbnewspaper.com
If there’s one thing San Benito Housing and Development Corporation officials know about the historic Stonewall Jackson property, it’s that they don’t know anything.
Members of the Housing Board of Directors shared on Monday their thoughts with regard to the future of the 87-year-old landmark and why they were largely unaware of any plan being devised for the property they inherited.
Stonewall Jackson, which was purchased by the San Benito Housing Authority for approximately $220,000 in April 2013, was once a popular attraction for social gatherings during the time of its construction in 1927.
Located in the vicinity of the 200 block of E. Stenger Street, the three-story edifice now sits boarded up after previously serving as an apartment complex that had dilapidated over the years.
Board members Ron Rogers, Elma Barrera and Jose F. Rodriguez all expressed similar sentiments concerning the need to place Stonewall Jackson on the agenda of an upcoming meeting in December for discussion.
“I believe that it’s been requested to be on an upcoming agenda, and at that time we will discuss any plans,” Rogers said. “Currently, I don’t believe there is a plan. But we have to take into consideration the realities of the landscape of today and look at any potential funding that we might have or not have. The philosophy and climate may be different now than what it was when it was purchased, so we really have to look at the availability of funds or lack thereof.”
Like Rogers and Rodriguez, Barrera is relatively new to the board and was not aware of any initial plans for Stonewall Jackson’s future.
She said, “I was not there when it was purchased and don’t know the full plans for it. (If the corporation) can’t restore it and have it be cost effective, we might consider selling it. …We’re supposed to discuss it shortly, but it depends on what the majority of the board would like to do.
“I have ideas but it’s a five-member board that needs to be in the same line of thought, but I don’t know why it was purchased,” Barrera added. “It’s a beautiful, historic property, but I don’t know about cost effectiveness and if we can do something with it.”
Rodriguez said he plans to place the matter on the agenda for consideration.
“I hope to put it on the agenda to see what the board wants to do with it, because so far, I haven’t received any real plans as far as what they plan to do with it,” Rodriguez said. “I asked before what the formal plan was for it, and the building has already been bought so what are we going to do with it; but I never received a reply from anybody. So it’ll probably be on the agenda for next month to see what the board wants to do with it.”
[slideshow_deploy id=’16741′]
3 comments
Nuff said.
From by best recollection, the purchase was made when members Victor Trevino, Chon Lopez, Larry Leal were on the SBPHA board. Arnold Padilla was the director and Joe Henandez was Mayor. That should tell you a lot.
So let me be sure I understand,what at least is being told,of this deal,the city,my tax monies,spent almost a quarter of a million dollars purchasing this relic from the thirties.It’s continued to sit idle since”the sale”,forgotten about,and now these people that we have in charge of it are considering putting it on their agenda,for discussion
I was thinking that was the reason it was”sold” to the city, the lack of the previous owner’s ability to improve the property and maintain it in a safe condition.Did Cruz-Hogan do a study on this,or can anybody remember ?