I am responding to your Editorial on Tuesday, June 12, with regard to the Historic Review Board’s decision to deny the further economic development on the property at Fourth and Vigo streets.
I am in total agreement with your commentary and presentation of facts.
I am disappointed that the HRB is using its authority and personal opinions to decide and to dictate the further use of Allan’s property. The property is not in use because the owner has reached retirement age. I think the honorable thing to do is for the HRB members to rethink and reconsider their decision. I have talked to a lot of people and not one is in agreement with the HRB’s decision. It is questionable how far the HRB’s authority is intended to control economic development. This proposed business would bring new employment and new taxes on equipment and improvements.
If the board members have denied this proposal for progress with their authority they should use their same authority to set guidelines for what the property owner is to do with the property.
If the standard or required improvement do not meet the board’s approval, what are they asking or demanding now and in the future? The owner has only one option, to continue to pay taxes and insurance and let it further deteriorate so the city can ask for grant money to take it away and it becomes a vacant lot that is of no economic value.
Businesses look a lot better than vacant lots.
Would any of the board members like to put themselves in the position of the property owner and have their request denied? This building is not a historical structure, it is a modern business building and free enterprise should be allowed to be exercised in this instance.