"Unsafe and Dangerous Structure?"

Just when was this photo taken, where is the property, and who is the owner? The photo was taken at dusk on January 17, 2006. The property is located on the corner of Crawford and Linker Street, (aka: Belltown) and the owner is the City of Fort Scott. The city purchased the property with flood mitigation funds as it is in the flood plain. It is also in the City limits. The city uses this dilapidated building to store salt for the streets during the winter. Additional disrepair that this photo doesn't reflect is that the sides of the building are blowing out from being pushed against when loading the salt, and as of last night the brush and weeds around the building were over 5' tall.

But that was last night.

If you were to have seen the building today you would have seen the doors removed and the brush cut down. That is a direct result of former Commissioner Kevin "Skitch" Allen bringing this safety hazard before the city commission last night, this time as a concerned citizen. It is a topic that was not on the agenda, but the photos and comments were presented to the commission during his portion of the publics allotted 3 minutes of time. (I think he went into "overtime" a bit, but he wasn't gaveled this time.) Anyhow, the result was that a public works crew began the clean up on the building this morning. Either nothing else was scheduled or they truly considered this an urgent attention situation.

I agree Skitch's statements in the Tribune that this has been a poor example set by the city. The same city/owner of this dilapidated property holds public hearings on alleged dangerous and unsafe structures, passes judgment and condemns properties owned by citizens many times every year. The same Commission has budgeted $50,000 in 2006 for demolition of condemned properties around town. Owners are faced with 30-90 day time-frames to get things in order. The city has owned this particular property for more than 3 years. It is a good thing they are finally deciding to set the example before passing the judgment.

When originally asked about the condition and proposed use of this property by Skitch, who was at the time a Commissioner himself, the reply given by the city was that the building was to be torn down. That was the answer a few years ago, but last night Commissioner Keating suggested a new solution to this problem. He felt that it would be adequate to remove the doors and stack some of those "obsolete concrete barriers that the highway department doesn't use anymore" and place them against the walls which are protruding, cut the brush down and continue using it to store salt. His reasoning was that it is "a low traffic area and stuff." -Or something to that effect. Wonder what the residents of Walnut Hill who use that as a short cut into town would think. Should the city stop any maintenance of the streets "way over there off the beaten path." Perhaps those residents can annex out and stop paying city taxes since the city feels that it's okay to maintain a nusiance "way over there." It just gets ridiculous at times.

So what kind of example does this set? If you are a citizen who has received notice from the codes department that you own a dangerous and unsafe structure, could you also offer this same solution? Just tell the codes officer and commission that your intention is to cut the weeds after they get over 5' tall, take out the doors and windows and put some concrete blocks around the places that are bulging out? Maybe it would be okay to do like what the city has done with the Miller Block. Just shore it up, put a 4' high plywood fence around the perimeter and tell everyone your waiting for an "investor".

Something that is also interesting to me about this situation, and last night's meeting, is how Skitch could seemingly accomplish more things now that he is not a City Commissioner, nor even a city resident. (Don't confuse not being a resident with not having the city interest at heart.) This is only one situation, here are some more examples that come to mind...

Who do you think originally inquired about a city website and was told by the city manager that the city "doesn't have $10,000 for a website? That would be Commissioner Allen.

Who reapproached his fellow commissioners with the fact that a website wouldn't have to cost $10,000. Allen. (Interesting that that Commissioners Keating, Hedges and Mayor Billionis, who all were told we didn't have $10,000 for a city website then, recently voted to alot $12,500 for the Chamber to improve their website just a few meetings back. (Actually the Chamber will receive more than $99,000 in funding from the current commission this year.) -another story.

Who do you think originally proposed a water park or skate park for the community? Nick Graham? No, the answer would be Commissioner Kevin Allen. The response given to him back then by the city manager; "Well if you know where we can get $3,000,000 dollars then we can build it." (Sarcasm paraphrased.) When asked what that meant by Allen, the city manager told him that other cities could afford them because other cities have the benefit of wealthy benefactors who donate money to fund them. The ball dropped, for the time being...back then.

Who originally proposed a nightly meeting time for citizen participation? Commissioner Allen. (Last night's meeting was at 7 pm with considerable attendance, input and questions.)

When Mayor Billionis, at a city goal setting session, suggested the hiring of an Economic Development Director, what commissioner informed him that we already have one on staff who is paid to perform those duties? Commissioner Allen.

There are many examples of double standards with local city politics, and one that I also find interesting is that of all former city officials that I know of, not one continues to stay publicly active and involved. None have returned to city meetings. I don't recall any attending the Community Conversation either, but I could be wrong. Even though he is considered by some commissioners as a "non-citizen", and considered by Barbara Wood on at least two occassions not to have the right to speak as such; I would wager, (oh forbid a wager in Fort Scott!), I would GUESS that AMERICAN, BOURBON COUNTY CITIZEN Kevin "Skitch" Allen has more personal business and financial interest in this city then any other Commissioner, or perhaps all of them combined! That brings mind another of the City's double-standards. That double standard being that certain other "prominent" non-city limit residents or businessmen often approach the city about funding or grants or other requests, and they are treated with a much higher level of respect than Allen. Even though none of the one's I have seen have been publicly supported by any documented votes from the public. Different level of respect? Let me rephrase that; the reality is they are given respect period, where he is not. I think the former Commissioner and I share the same type of concern and compassion for this city which at times is hard to contain when we feel that the majority of citizens of the community aren't being treated fairly or the administration is just not doing the job their paid to do or misrepresenting things to the public (That's usually about the time I get gaveled.) Another Double-Standard! Last night there were more than a few audience outbursts, or comments to city staff outside the limits of "Barbara's Rules." No "knock on wood" gaveling, "knock on wood." I bet the three Commissioners that were there, (Keating, Billionis, and Graham) wished Barbara was back.

Well enough of the "praise all mighty," stand on the soap box fer Skitch stuff. This has just been a vent of some of the things that bug me. Believe me, I have more, but for those you'll have to wait, for I promise I will post them right here. Here where I fear not the sound of the Gavel, or the constraint of 3 minutes.