A Submission…AW

WOODSTOCKS’ TOP 10 DERELICT BUILDINGS..AND WHO OWNS THEM
If you’ve seen the front page of today’s Sentinel you’re aware of the story about Woodstock’s ten worst crumbling derelicts. What should make you angry is that two of those properties are not derelicts. They are still in use and they are the property of the Corporation of the City of Woodstock. The Arena and Lion’s Pool have been allowed to deteriorate to their current appalling condition under the stewardship of our City Council and Rec. Department. Now they have the nerve to suggest that perhaps a brand spanking new facility is the solution. Why would anyone support entrusting a new facility to the same bunch of irresponsible, incompetant jerks who allowed the current facilities to crumble and rot? These people obviously have no talent or sense of public responsibility. We don’t need a brand spanking new facility. We need a brand spanking new Mayor and Council. Why wasn’t the Shoppers building included? It’s the highest profile crumbling derelict in the city. It will cost the most to fix. If you apply the same logic the City is using to try to justify a new facility to replace the pool and arena to the Gallery the solution would be to replace the Shoppers building with a new facility. A new facility would cost 5.5 million. They have the study to prove it. Renovating Shoppers will cost 10 million. Why wasn’t the Shoppers building included? Because Harding BOUGHT it! If allowing public facilities to deteriorate is stupid and irresponsible how much more stupid and irresponsibe is BUYING another crumbling pile of bricks. I suppose you could make the argument that buying a building that is already falling apart saves Council all the time and trouble of waiting for a perfectly good building we already own to fall into disrepair. That’s it! It’s a time saver. How efficient of them. fire.them.all.
Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Anonymous
    Posted June 30, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    Our City Engineer's comments at the end of the piece are particularly interesting. He states, " "We take no proactive action on these things," he said. "We have a policy: we wait for complaints. There are a number of reasons we do that, including staffing levels…."
    Yes there are a number of reasons but it would appear that number is "one" as he only mentions staffing. I wonder what the other reasons are and why he didn't feel they were worth mentioning. Surely if staffing was the only problem it would be worthwhile pumping up the department a bit to deal with the filth and decay in this city. What's the real reason(s) the city's not pursuing corrective action on these properties?

    It's high time Council reviewed this so called policy of ignoring filth and corruption. Of course that could be a problem since, given some of the actions of this council, I'm not sure they would recognize filth and corruption if someone rubbed their noses in it.

  2. Anonymous
    Posted July 2, 2009 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    amen


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: