Jump to content



Photo

Why not this house?


  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#121 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:06 AM

***** posted: "I have always thought

it was a big mistake saving them

and moving them

to the vacant lot on Pearl Street."
That does seem to be a very reasonable and intelligent statement!

 

Question:
Has your research shown what the total cost of those four questionable structures from all sources is to date?"
I think there have been some newspaper articles concerning the process.
It is possible that a much better decision could have been made.


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:22 AM.


#122 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:21 AM

In post #118 Big Bopper wisely said:

"Wouldn't it had been nice if they had invested their money on rehabbing it.

It would have been better than spending it
on the old houses on Pearl St.

What a waste of resources

and development

property."



#123 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 10:39 AM

***** posted:

"Yes they could have turned Galligan loose with a dozer.

It would have been a better choice."

...lol...

:emoticon-looney-toons-019:

"The total cost is going to be high but are local tax dollars invested in the project?"

 

 

 

 

Yes, certainly, anyone in Jeffersonville and Clark County

who pays Uncle Sammy their hard earned, scarce tax dollars

has their tax dollars sunk into the four houses.


Edited by Savile Row, 25 April 2015 - 10:47 AM.


#124 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 06:27 PM

Savile, I hate paying taxes as much as anyone. The feds waste sooooo much money. However, whenever the feds want to return some fun do to the community I usually don't complain, but putting federal funds in those old houses is about as stupid as it gets.

Shame we can't vote on where to spend our federal rebate.

#125 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,463 posts

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:46 PM

Yep!  That was stupid, funding the move & rehab on those old houses that were poorly constructed in the first place!  No historical value whatsoever!  All done at no small expense to the taxpayers.



#126 Stephen Voelker

Stephen Voelker

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 26 April 2015 - 06:43 AM

Construction seems to be moving with "all deliberate speed". Same managers as the bridge ramp and O'sheas.



#127 Jules

Jules

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts

Posted 26 April 2015 - 04:23 PM

I don't think those particular houses were worth saving either...Although it does look they're being rehabbed nicely and will be quite cute...( Just looking for a bright side)...The "cute" doesn't justify the expense, but at this point it is what it is.


  • GrumpyGranny likes this

#128 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 28 April 2015 - 08:45 AM

Some interesting quotes:
 

"New Urbanist theory is agnostic on the age of buildings."

"Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets."
 
"Buildings over 50 years of age are sometimes 'eligible' but my not be a wise selection."

 

"Perhaps far, far too marginal to consider for controls."

el·i·gi·ble
(ĕl′ĭ-jə-bəl)
adj.
1. Qualified or entitled to be chosen.,
2. Desirable and worthy of choice.


Edited by Savile Row, 28 April 2015 - 08:51 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users