Comment 89984

By gary buttrum (anonymous) | Posted July 06, 2013 at 18:13:39

david, the buildings are absolutely not beyond repair which is why earlier this week i contacted the owner to purchase these buildings to fully restore them. i'm not an engineer, but i have been working with heritage structures for almost a decade and am certain that these buildings are prime examples of structures that would be ideal for renovation. they look bad superficially because the owner has never invested in them for the long term. they have been left to decay because the intent all along was to demolish the assembled property.

blanchard is taking these buildings down now because he can and is concerned that this might not always be the case. which i find appalling, but he is well within his rights. the response from city council however is not.

while people like myself and others work hard and risk great amounts trying to make this city better, getting nothing but hassle and red tape from the city, large property speculators sit and wait on acres of decaying buildings playing monopoly with our city's future. the small businesses get delay and process while blanchard gets closed door meetings and sweetheart compromises. why? the downtown master plan should be adhered to. staff recommendations to designate these buildings should be adhered to.

buildings that stand become part of the community, eventually. buildings that come down remain abandoned weed filled land waiting for whenever.
as long as we keep rewarding speculators we will continue to encourage more demolition.

we desperately need more buildings, not more emptiness.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds