"Time to Let Go...."

This photo is of the effort in progress to stabilize what remains of the Miller/Nelson block downtown. It has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen attempted in my life. If you will notice, the face of the building is bowed-in. At the time of this photo the contractor's have bent a steel beam to fit the curve, it is lying on the street and will be put in place on the building. I suppose I should not use the word "attempted" above, because I am sure that Mid-Continental and Norris Welding will set out to do what they bid to do and do it very well, and that is "Stabilize". This work does not involve "Restoration." Perhaps only "preservation." The iron girder's and gussets will keep the dilapidated burned-out remains of this building from falling to the ground. I can't imagine what makes our City Manager, Economic Development Director and all of the Commission with the exception of Nick Graham think that this is a worthwhile project. Is our Commission once again being led down the wrong path? Here is an excerpt from the City Commission Minutes of April 19...

Miller Block Building Specifications: City Manager informed the Commission that the City is close to acquiring this property through the Urgent Need Grant project.
The City has two options:

1. Remove the building;

2. Shore and stabilize it and market the building to a developer. The Kansas State Historical Society felt strongly enough that this building was worth saving they sent their structural engineer to look it over. City Manager said if it was put on the State Historical Register, there will be funds available to stabilize the buildings from various organizations. The Miller Block Building is the oldest building in Fort Scott and was constructed in 1863. The Nelson Building was constructed in 1884. City Manager said the City has a one-time opportunity to retain a part of our history.

Commissioner Graham remarked that he has spoken to a couple of contractors and said the cost of stabilization could be very expensive. The historical markers and cornerstones could be kept and reconstructed with new buildings built around the markers.

Don Russell said he has received calls from a redeveloper in Lawrence, Kansas who is interested in developing this property. Discussion was held regarding the bid notices to remove rubble and the stabilization and shoring of the Miller and Nelson buildings and the date they would be received.

Keating moved to let bids for the stabilization and shoring of the Miller and Nelson buildings and for the removal of the debris and make a decision after bids are received at our next meeting. Wood seconded. Keating, Wood and Billionis voted aye. Graham voted no. Motion carried. " - Commission Minutes, April 19, 2005

Sounds like the "facts" were presented to the Commission, right? Perhaps, until you read this article as reprinted from the "Kansas State Historical Society" Newsletter for March/April of 2005. It would appear to me that the "Historic Masonry Engineer" recommended otherwise, here is an excerpt...


After the preservation team's onsite visit on March 16, the National Trust for Historic Preservation contracted with a historic masonry engineer to provide a recommendation as to
the structural integrity of the buildings. KSHS prepared a report with recommended treatments for buildings determined stable by the historic engineer. The KSHS also provided advice regarding compatible infill for lost buildings.

At the time of this publication, great efforts were being made to stabilize what remained of the Miller Block. Although the historic engineer determined other buildings salvageable, the city determined that stabilizing these buildings would be cost prohibitive.
Currently there are no emergency funding sources for historic preservation in Kansas.

(Here's a link to the entire article from the newsletter if you care to read it:)
http://www.kshs.org/resource/ks_preservation/kpmarapr05.pdf

I wonder why the entire engineer's report was not provided for the Commissioners to review in order to make an informed decision? In all reality why did they even need the details just to make a common-sense decision? I mean think about it, there haven't been any investors interested in downtown development when the building stood with walls, floors and a roof, so what makes the Commission feel that investor/developers will now come flocking? Wonder what that "redeveloper from Lawrence" would think now? What developer would be willing to spend what is necessary to tear down the "stabilization" iron in order to rehab this burnt out corner of the block? Would they not have to tear-out the over $60,000.00 spent on this work? I think about any engineer would tell them that you lay brick from the ground up! They will not be doing any restoration from the top down and removing the iron as they go. In the meantime we will have a tremendous eyesore and embarrassment for what is left of downtown. I can't imagine people coming to town and not saying "What on earth are they doing!?" I'm sorry, the Miller block may well be a part of Fort Scott history, but it is not the original White House or anything. As Commissioner Wood recently put it these are "unchartered waters" the Commission is venturing in to. That is the absolute truth! I do have to wonder who the Commission has put their faith in for arriving at this conclusion not to tear down the buildings. I saw Don Miller and Arnold Schofield vocalizing their opinions to the Commission in favor of the stabilzation. I respect Mr's. Miller and Scholfield and their knowledge of history, especially in Fort Scott and Bourbon County, and their community service, but I feel that if they feel so strongly about saving what's really gone then they need to pool their organization money together to divey up the moola. It is not right to add this "stabilization" to the backs of the rest of this community. Mr. Schofield has made a 3 to 5 year prediction that an investor will aquire and restore the Miller Block. I wouldn't bet any amount of money on that, especially to the tune of over $60,000. I question as a historian and tour host for the park service how Mr. Schofield speaks with any expertise on the issue of redevelopment. I spoke with a downtown business owner yesterday who told our Economic Development Director that he was interested in the property adjacent to his, the response he got? "Oh no, we're saving it all for a developer!" In my opinion, they may have just passed up one of the only offers they ever get.