Can the former Crain building be saved?

For more than eight years, the former Crain Sanitarium building and its smaller, brick neighbor have deteriorated unabated although interest exists to rehabilitate them.

However, entering the buildings to assess their viability has been impossible. Both have absent owners not paying taxes and not responding to requests for building access.

Indiana Landmarks is now pursuing avenues to save those historic buildings in the 2100 block of East Main Street. Brittany Miller, the eastern regional director for Indiana Landmarks, explained Nov. 12 her current proposal to Richmond’s Historic Preservation Commission.

“Those two properties have been on my priority list since I started at Indiana Landmarks three years ago, trying to figure out a way to make something work with those,” Miller said.

She has met with Mayor Ron Oler and Jeff Plasterer, president of Wayne County’s commissioners, about taking ownership from the private owners — Kristopher Nelson and Heaven and Benjamin Johnson for the Crain building at 2116 E. Main St. and Mark Olson of Oelwein, Iowa, for 2110 E. Main St. Miller, who admits that’s a risk for the city or county, would then like access to evaluate whether rehabilitation of either building is feasible.

If she can arrive at a dollar figure, Miller can present that to Indiana Landmarks for consideration. The group has money set aside for rehabilitation projects.

Both properties have been through tax sales without selling. There’s $18,201.48 in taxes and penalties owed on the Crain building and $14,868.53 owed for the 2110 building. The commissioners have the right to request a judge award them the properties’ deeds, but the commissioners will not risk being stuck as the property owners.

Plasterer said commissioners would take deeds only if there’s a written agreement with the city, Indiana Landmarks or another group guaranteeing an immediate transfer of ownership.

Nelson purchased the Queen Anne-style Crain building, which has served as a home, sanitarium, hospital, inn, tourist center and apartment building, for $1 in 2010, planning to put businesses in it. That never happened, and in 2016, he began selling the building on contract to the Johnsons. They began renovation work; however, criminal issues and legal claims of not paying contractors derailed their efforts.

Nelson sued to regain ownership, but the suit was dismissed during August 2020 when Nelson and the Johnsons twice failed to meet and file required notices to the court.

Nelson also has sued Olson, who bought the 2110 property on a land contract. There has been no activity in that suit since Olson signed that he received a summons in August 2020. A Circuit Court hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Jan. 3 to consider dismissal of the suit because of the inactivity.

The city removed wraparound porches from both structures during 2021 for safety. Both porches were deteriorating, with collapsing roofs and unstable floors.

Miller isn’t sure what Indiana Landmarks would find inside the buildings. Her initial idea is to stabilize the buildings and renovate the exteriors prior to identifying next steps.

The two-story brick structure at 2110 would likely be a simpler project as a single-family home. It has 2,528 square feet of finished space, according to county property records. The two-story Crain building has 12 rooms and 5,095 square feet finished.

Certainly, Indiana Landmarks could find that saving one or both structures is not feasible. Indiana Landmarks has protective easements that prevent demolition; however, Miller said there could be demolition if that’s Indiana Landmarks’ assessment.

In that scenario, the easements would ensure any new construction on either property would respect the neighboring homes in the Linden Hill Conservation District. But neither Indiana Landmarks nor the HPC members want to lose the Crain building.

“We don’t want to see it come down, but we’re also trying to be realistic, and we’re trying to take the steps forward that need to be taken,” Miller said. “And, perhaps, if there had been an avenue for this maybe five years ago, 10 years ago, it would have been an easier, more-affordable task.”