This was my response to a letter that appeared in the Advertiser-Tribune, something like two days after I wrote the last post. The original letter had 17 reasons to save our courthouse. My response is called ...
17 Reasons (Not) to Save Our Courthouse:
1. The ground floor always has been of use. It held various county offices, including Judge Thomas Spellerberg’s courtroom, office and jury room, plus the public restrooms, and it is elevator accessible.
1. And, that courtroom was considered inadequate by every official and juror who served in it. Judge Spellerberg kept comment forms in his office to send to the commissioners that almost all listed “courtroom is too small” as one of the comments. Judge Steve Shuff moved out of it as soon as possibly could.
2. Security is a simple matter: Close all but one main entrance, install a metal detector and post a security guard.
2. True enough. It was already being done. However, there are still lots of windows and doors on the first floor that would allow access to someone with nefarious intentions.
3. Space required for modern office equipment (copiers, computers, etc.) makes housing all county offices in one building an impossibility.
3. Right again, but what does saving the courthouse have to do with that? Either way, the county will find enough space for its operations. The question is which is more efficient and, ultimately, cheaper for the county and its taxpayers? The fewer buildings, the better.
4. Additional county buildings house multiple offices:
4. This is not a reason to keep the existing courthouse. It’s simply a fact.
5. Our courthouse has ample county parking lots: A) Annex Building; B) former county commissioners building; C) county commissioners building; D) Juvenile and probate court building; E) RTA building/CSB building; F) Job and Family Services building.
5. True enough. By this standard, so would a new one. Again, not a reason to keep or rebuild.
6. Our courthouse is located on two-way South Washington Street.
6. And one-way Court Street, and one-way Jefferson Street and one-way Market Street. A new one also would be located along the same streets.
7. Environmental regulations require removal and proper disposal of any hazardous material — whether our courthouse is restored or destroyed.
7. Again, that’s not really an argument to keep the existing courthouse. It’s just a fact.
8. Our courthouse already is connected to the Annex for heating and cooling; is constructed of natural insulating materials (thick stonewalls); was designed as fireproof and constructed as durable for hundreds of years.
8. A reasonable argument, until you realize how leaky the windows are. Even if the building is renovated, it would have the same windows and doors in the same places. The renovation might be more efficient than the old building, but it wouldn’t be as efficient as a modern one.
9. Restoration plans show the elevator moved from the central stairwell and handicapped accessible; “large hallways” already are handicap accessible.
9. A new courthouse would be REALLY handicapped accessible. Nyahh.
10. By a very narrow margin a tax increase that would have paid for restoration was rejected. Citizens did not vote for demolition. No official polling or ballot proposal has ever been offered citizens concerning preservation versus destruction.
10. However, citizens voted not to renovate. This probably does not indicate a desire to let it sit empty and rot, so the only alternatives are keep using it as it is or build a new one.
11. Our courthouse is the only remaining E.E. Myers designed county courthouse in the nation. The four remaining preserved and restored Myers courthouses function as state capitol buildings.
11. But, it is not in its original state. The original clock tower is gone, for one. It’s actually a mixup of bizarre styles. E.E. Myers would probably want it torn down after seeing what’s been done to it. I don’t know if anyone has asked him about it, though.
12. The Annex, hastily and erroneously erected atop contaminated soil (previous site of oil storage tanks), now requires additional funds to conform to environmental standards. Where are the reports of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency testing? Haste does make waste!
12. Is anyone talking about putting up a new courthouse in haste? The Annex had a construction deadline to meet because of insurance money. A new courthouse would not.
13. When our courthouse is restored, there will be one secure main entrance for taxpayers, judges, lawyers and visitors.
13. Didn’t we do this in number two?
14. Renovation, alteration, and relocation of all county offices to a warehouse-style structure would be cost prohibitive and ludicrous.
14. Don’t you think it would be nice if all the county buildings matched the new Wal-Mart?
15. Communities with preserved/restored historic courthouses report revitalized downtown areas and increased tourism revenues. Counties that destroyed their historic structures regret their decision, citing among many reasons: a depressed downtown area, diminished tourism and the inability to erect buildings with the same durability, longevity, quality of materials and workmanship. Many buildings built today have a life span of about 30-40 years.
15. I know you are but what am I?
16. As of June 14, the “Save Our Courthouse” Tiffin Historic Trust petition to our commissioners has received in excess of 1,000 signatures, following the “courthouse rally” held on a cold, cloudy Saturday morning.
16. Where were those 1,000 people during the election to pass a tax to renovate the courthouse? See point 10.
17. Parking accessibility? See No. 5.
17. So, this isn’t 17 reasons. It’s actually 14.
P.S. Unlike the publicly printed statement of one of our current county commissioners, I and thousands of Seneca Countians do care about our heritage, our history and historic structures which stand as visible connections with our past and tangible links for our future generations.
P.S. I’d love to preserve the heritage of the county and its history, but I don’t think county employees should have to work in a historical dump. The courthouse should be replaced, with a modern structure. The 1880’s design and the neglect of the last 50 years makes it unusable. The beauty it may have had has long been destroyed, and it’s time to build something new that Tiffin can be proud of.
No comments:
Post a Comment