"No revitalization without condemnation"
This is another view that I do not share, but I'm throwing it out there for comment. It is reportedly held by some highly respected members of the community.
Basically, it holds that because of the complexities of property ownership and easements in the historic core, there is no way we're going to get a consensus developed within a reasonable time period unless the County condemns the property or the owners somehow voluntarily submit their own property for condemnation. The upside here is that everyone gets paid for their property and development can proceed in a cohesive way.
I don't buy it. Who does?
2 Comments:
I don't buy it either in the context expressed. Plus, common sense tells you it is not politacally palpable to go to that extreme: you don't overdose a patient to cure them.
Representatives of all the key land owners are still "at the table" and willing to work together in accordance with their stated goal.
Kurt Pronske
I'll wade in - who has determined what is a "reasonable time frame"? The declaration, as written here, turns on that key point.
Arbitrarily imposed criteria such as this may well stir up a sense of urgency in many, but we, as thinking individuals can see through this ploy, can't we?
Give me a set of pertinent, accurate data based on historic fact and THEN I'll make my decisions... If you can show me that, say, the County has stated that they will withdraw all funding if consensus can't be reached in "X" time frame, and that those individuals who are required to reach consensus are at a stalemate, AND that, as a result of these two conditions, the Plaza will plunge into ruin and decay, then maybe we can start talking imminent domain.
Otherwise, "no revitalization without condemnation" is simply conjecture - perhaps a valid point (I hope not) based on experience, but conjecture nontheless.
Post a Comment
<< Home