By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Gwendolyn appeal continued after long hearing

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Forerunner

It is a tragic irony that a body charged with preserving our architectural heritage has instead chosen to stand in the way of progress and development. The proposed project would bring much-needed investment and revitalization to the downtown area, creating jobs and economic opportunity for the community at large. And yet, the Historic Landmarks Committee has chosen to prioritize its own narrow interests over the greater good of the city.

But what is truly outrageous is the Committee's apparent ignorance of the historical context of the buildings in question. These structures are not architectural masterpieces, nor are they of any particular cultural or historical significance. They are simply run-down buildings in need of repair and renovation. By denying the demolition permit, the Committee has effectively condemned these buildings to a slow death, ensuring that they will continue to decay and blight the neighborhood for years to come.

Hopefully, the Planning Commission will come to recognize that preservation is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. We do not preserve buildings simply because they are old or aesthetically pleasing, but because they serve a valuable function in our communities. If a building can no longer fulfill its intended purpose, if it is a drain on resources and a hazard to public safety, then it is time to let it go.

In this case, the proposed project represents a clear and compelling vision for the future of the downtown area, one that will create jobs, stimulate economic growth, and enhance the overall quality of life for the community. To deny this vision on the grounds of preserving a few unremarkable buildings is not only misguided, it is downright irresponsible.

It is my fervent hope that the Planning Commission will recognize the importance of this project to the future of our city. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the people of our community, both present and future.

CubFan

Forerunner...well said! I completely agree.

Bleepbloop

Of all this issues with city and county written about in this newspaper, this is the one issue that seems to have near universal agreement amongst readers. It is ridiculous that this project can’t move forward. It’s not everyday that a developer comes wanting to invest this kind of money and effort into McMinnville. It may not be a perfect project, but it will benefit the community!

sbagwell

I think it's worth noting that this is a two-step process. The issue is step one is simply demolition of buildings.
Size and design issues would be dealt with in step two, and the city would have the ability to shape those to its liking. The bulk of the structure as currently proposed would not get any sort of green light through the current process, which is limited strictly to demolition.

Steve

YamhiJamma

Forerunner said, "The proposed project would bring much-needed investment and revitalization to the downtown area, creating jobs and economic opportunity for the community at large." This misses the point. The issue isn't whether the hotel gets built, but where.

"But what is truly outrageous is the Committee's apparent ignorance of the historical context of the buildings in question." Unless you read the materials from the applicant and those who testified, and listened to all the testimony, I doubt you are better informed than the committee members. Disagreement does not equal ignorance.

"We do not preserve buildings simply because they are old or aesthetically pleasing, but because they serve a valuable function in our communities." Agreed! The landmarks commission was not convinced that the existing buildings were without value. Also, bear in mind that the focus isn't just on these buildings, but also on the larger historic district of which they are a part.

The applicant's ability to make more money tearing the buildings down than leaving them up is not evidence that they will decay or become blighted. They are being used now and there is every indication that will continue.

sbagwell

My comment on the two-step nature of the process was not entirely correct. They are proceeding simultaneously.

However, the two matters do raise different issues that are separable. The city could, in fact, grant demolition authority and still impose restrictions on the look and scale of new construction.

Steve

Ossie Bladine

YamhiJamma,

For clarification, the middle of the three buildings is for the most part empty since the N-R staff relocated earlier this year. The corner building is currently in use; however, the arrangement with that business was made at the beginning of this hotel application process, with knowledge its time there may be limited, and thus with favorable rates well below market value.

MSM

Well said, Forerunner!

Jean

Forerunner.....I totally agree.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented