Days Gone By In Staunton

Thursday, May 17, 1990 -- FIRE DESTROYS MAIN STREET LANDMARK -- A fire of undetermined origin totally destroyed two buildings on Main and Union Streets Saturday night. The buildings at 100 and 102 East Main housed a dentist's office, dress shop, and office of a sanitation company, besides a number of residential apartments. According to Fire Chief Ron Dustman, Staunton Junior Fireman Patrick Wineburner, son of Ed and Marsha Wineburner, passed the building and reported the fire to Staunton Police at 11:59 p.m.

Chief Dustman said the fire which apparently started somewhere inside a back downstairs apartment had been burning for some time. A hole had been burnt up through the roof when firemen arrived. There was no loss of life or injuries although there was "one close call." One tenant of an upstairs apartment became trapped by the heavy smoke and fire and was hanging from a back second story window when firemen arrived. Dustman said the first thing they did was to get a ladder and get him down.

Besides the Staunton Fire Department, Gillespie, Litchfield, Mt. Olive, and Livingston Departments responded to the call. Gillespie and Litchfield brought their aerial trucks which were indispensable while working around the two story building. Benld and Bunker Hill departments were on stand-by throughout the night. Dustman estimated there were at least 30 firemen on hand to fight the blaze.

Dustman said he had no idea of how much water was used to extinguish the blaze. "We had a good water supply. The best water line in town goes right down Union Street," he said. The departments initially left the scene at about 6:30 a.m. But because the roof had collapsed onto debris they were not surprised when they were called back two more times before the fire was finally put out.

The devastated building on the corner of Union and Main Streets had been an area landmark for many years. Until a few years ago it served as a drug store and was owned by Sullivan's, Cox, Menges, and Websters.

The building housed a railroad office many years ago. The building occupied by Dr. McDonald was relatively new. For many years a small wooden concession stand had stood on that spot.

Chief Dustman said this was the largest fire on Main Street since the old NAPA building on Main and Laurel Streets burned. He said the fire could have been much worse if there had not been a fire wall between the dentist's office and Kay's Apparel. Although there was no fire damage to the next building, Dustman expects that there was smoke damage to it.

Dustman extends sincere thanks to the other fire departments that participated. He said without the assistance of the aerial trucks they would not have been able to fight the two story blaze. He also thanks the Emergency Service and Disaster Agency which illuminated the fire area with their portable equipment.

LIVINGSTON RESIDENT AT STAUNTON BOARD MEETING -- A resident of the Livingston School District attended the Staunton Board of Education meeting Monday evening, May 14. Mrs. Esola Sievers introduced herself as a representative of a new political action group called "Save Our Community."

She informed the Staunton board that her group had circulated a letter asking the Livingston School Board to meet with the Staunton Board to discuss annexation, then allow Livingston residents to vote on the issue. She also reported that letters had been submitted to the Livingston Board with 276 signatures.

According to Mrs. Sievers, the Livingston Board tabled the letters and questioned how some of the signatures were obtained. Mrs. Sievers submitted a letter to the Staunton board in which her group sought answers to several questions. Their first concern was - Is the Staunton Board still open to annexation discussion? They also questioned - Would the A. R. Graiff Grade School building be utilized following annexation; Would the Livingston teachers be integrated into the newly created district staff; The student - teacher ratio in the Staunton District; and Would tax rates be the same for all residents of the district?

Staunton Board member Don Sievers made a motion they send a letter to the Livingston Board and the Livingston Mayor inviting the Livingston Board and an Ad Hoc citizens committee (not to exceed six members) to meet with the Staunton Board to discuss possible annexation when the people of the Livingston District feel the time is appropriate. The motion was defeated.

Board President Jim Schultze noted that he felt such a letter might be construed as interference. He remarked that he would certainly not appreciate anyone from another district trying to tell us how to run our district; therefore, the Staunton Board had no right to address the Livingston Board on how it handled Livingston District problems. He added that the Board was representative of the community and any requests to the Livingston Board should come from Livingston District residents. He also pointed out that the Staunton Board had talked to the Livingston Board before. The Livingston Board had said they would get back to us, but have not done so. The previous motion to enter discussions with Livingston has never been rescinded. Barb Smith also noted that a new motion was not necessary and suggested the Board simply reaffirm the motion already adopted that Staunton is willing to discuss annexation anytime the Livingston Board wishes to instigate such talks.

In answer to the other questions, Schultze repeated the previous position that utilization of the grade school building in Livingston would probably be a necessity, however they could not give long term guarantees. Supt. Hawkins added his belief that small children should be educated as close to home as possible. Regarding Livingston teachers, school law dictates in the event of annexation, the two staffs would have to be meshed to create one staff. Principal Elmore reported the present student - teacher ratio at the Staunton High School as 19.1 to 1.

Hawkins pointed out that tax rates are a matter of public record. If a new District were created, everyone in that district would be taxed at the same rate.