An excavator hired by Carpionato Properties goes to work tearing down the canopy at the former market in Providence, built in 1929 for $1 million to distribute food and produce throughout Southeastern New England.

>

The Providence Journal / Andrew Dickerman

PROVIDENCE — A judge ruled yesterday afternoon that Carpionato Properties had the authority to knock down the historic food and produce terminal on Harris Avenue, touching off a showdown at the site between the developer and local preservationists that ended with a backhoe ripping up the side of the old building.

Demolition work continued on the property Tuesday.

The Johnston developer bought the warehouse from the state last year with the understanding that the old building would be reused in any future development, but last week the developer sought and received a demolition permit from the city to raze the 1929 building — which is on the National Register of Historic Places — on the grounds that it was unsafe.

Shocked state officials went to court Thursday seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the demolition. Yesterday, however, Superior Court Judge Michael Silverstein rejected their plea, and Carpionato was allowed to go forward with the demolition.

Minutes after the judge issued his ruling, backhoes began tearing down the canopy in front of the building. A second backhoe went to work on the eastern corner of the terminal, knocking out windows. Then, Erik Bright, a member of the board at the Providence Preservation Society, ran up onto the structure while demolition was under way, forcing the contractor, Johnston’s AA Wrecking, to stop.

He was soon joined by his dogs, Swanee and Scully, his friend Clay Rockefeller, a founder of the Steel Yard arts collaborative, and two other men.

Bright said they were trying to buy time for the state to file an appeal before city and state boards closed for the day. But no appeal was filed.

As a crowd gathered, Carpionato senior vice president Kelly Coates had the police summoned.

“We’re going to obey the law. We’ve requested that police come out here and remove them, just as you would trespassers at your home. [If they don’t move] we’re going to have them arrested.”

Shortly before 4:30 p.m., six officers peacefully escorted the four men and two dogs off the structure. No arrests were made.

As he came down from the building, Bright explained why he had run into the midst of the demolition.

“The idea today was to make sure they don’t do any more damage to the building before quitting time,” Bright said. “The idea that they’re going to start to demolish this building to the point when it’s so far gone, where saving it wouldn’t even be a possibility, is a tragedy.”

Bright’s hopes were dashed soon after, however, as the machines went back to work, and a backhoe started chewing up the eastern end of the old terminal.

Carpionato says that the full demolition could take as long as four months. Asbestos-removal work was already under way at the site, but Coates would not say how much asbestos still needs to be removed.

In court yesterday, the state made the case that the planned demolition violates clauses in the contract requiring state historic preservation officials to sign off on any changes to the development plan. The state also argued that it deserves the right to appeal Providence’s decision to issue the demolition permit.

Thomas Moses, Carpionato’s lawyer, countered that the intended demolition does not amount to a change in its development plan, and the developer is not yet obligated to secure state approvals.

Moses also argued that the state agreed in the contract to waive legal remedies and accept a monetary payout in this very situation. A section of the deal requires the developer to set aside $250,000 to be paid if Carpionato breaches the agreement, Moses wrote. But that is the extent of Carpionato’s liability, he argued, and beyond that, the state does not have legal recourse; nothing prevents Carpionato from destroying the building if the situation changes for regulatory reasons — like issuance of a demolition permit.

“The parties are sophisticated property sellers and purchasers. If either side wanted a particular provision in the final agreements, it should have negotiated for its inclusion. It is too late for DOT to complain about what it did not bargain for,” Moses wrote.

Silverstein said that the state did prove one of the requirements to obtain a restraining order: irreparable harm would be done if the building was torn down.

But Silverstein was not convinced that it met another test: could the case be won in the long term? Silverstein appeared to think not, saying that the state would be unlikely to prove its case if it went to full court.

“The court has concluded that it is unlikely here … that plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits,” Silverstein said.

“The court inescapably has concluded here that it must find against the plaintiff’s position,” Silverstein said.

The state’s lawyer, Michael D. Mitchell, declined comment on yesterday’s events or the state’s next move. Mitchell is the same lawyer who had wrote the original purchase agreement for the property.

The building, officially the Providence Fruit & Produce Warehouse Company building, was built in 1929 for $1 million to distribute food and produce throughout Southeastern New England.

But as large supermarket chains began buying their produce directly from the growers, the wholesale business suffered, and by the 1990s the building was little used and in poor repair. At the same time, the state Department of Transportation had its eye on part of the land at the site to build a highway off-ramp to serve the Providence Place mall, then under construction nearby.

In 1998, the DOT bought the building from Amtrak for $14.1 million and evicted the remaining businesses. It held the property for six years while it debated what to do with it, and the property deteriorated, becoming a haven for the homeless and a draw for graffiti artists.

The state decided to put the building up for sale in the spring of 2004, inviting development proposals so long as they incorporated the existing building into any new design.

The state’s initial plan had included a draft preservation easement that prevented the developer from knocking the building down for any reason, but that clause never made it into the final agreement.

Carpionato bid $4.5 million for the building in 2004, and finally closed on it in February 2007.

Last summer, the developer asked Providence Building Official Kerry Anderson to inspect the site, informing him that it might be unsafe. Anderson made visits in August and November, and on Dec. 28 issued a letter ordering Carpionato to obtain a demolition permit. Carpionato applied for the permit Jan. 8, received it Jan. 9, and the state made its court filing the next day.

Coates said that the developer plans to introduce a combination of retail, office, and hotel development at the site.

dbarbari@projo.com