So, who is paying for the mothballing? You sound hauntingly like a know-it-all jackass who loves to spend other people's money.
Do you want the taxpayers to pay the same amount to mothball it? How about when a firefighter is injured next time a fire breaks out? Is that worth the cost?
Mothballing the school would be a huge undertaking. But one WELL WORTH it. And it would provide an sensible owner the necessary time to rehab the school. A city that cares is a city that does the RIGHT thing. And protecting and saving the school is the right thing in my opinion. Shoot, I'd even consider taking a year of sabitical to volunteer to mothball the school if it meant saving it. That eye sore should be torn down immediately.
Do you want to contribute to the 3/4 of a million dollars it would cost tax payers to demo it?
I didn't think so
NO I am not asking the taxpayers for squat. Nor am I asking you for help. You sound hauntingly like another poster on the site but thats okay. Opinions are like rear-ends. We all have one and everyone's is different. If its demolished , THAT IS on your dime . If it is saved or mothballed , it would not be.
It is okay to have an opinion put please try to know what you're talking about
Kaiser, this kind of posting will get your comments deleted. People can have a different point of view than you do without being called a jackass.
Especially, in this case, where it happens that you are also factually mistaken.
It costs more, even in the short run, to demolish a house than it does to mothball it.
But the long term costs, in terms of property taxes, is just devastating by comparison. Cant tax a structure that doesn't exist can you?
Under your scenario, you would be spending twice the amount of our tax dollars than with mothballing.
And can we cut it out with the 'other people's money' tea bag nonsense?
Taxes belong to all of us, thats what a democracy runs off of.
Its not 'other people's money', it is public money, to be spent on maintaining our infrastructure, and whatever we as taxpayers decide it should be spent on.
I feel you on the amount of our personal incomes that we are being required to pay in order to fund less and less, but that dynamic is being driven by the exact mentality that would rather throw away something old and already paid for in favor of building something new that you have to borrow money to construct.
In other words, the exact policy you are advocating that we employ in this case.
But taxation rates is a separate matter, and there are plenty of potential threads upon which to discuss them.
In this case, it is cheaper and wiser to mothball.