YOUR COMMENTS

It looks like the editorial in the Union Leader of Nov. 30th has turned a blind eye towards historic preservation. In order to save the environment, one has to be a conservationist-- not a pyromaniac. Costs can be recouped by removing the building or by renting it out. All conservation measures should be explored in bilateral discussions.
- Stanley Shalett, Kingston

there should be new rules that state if you've made a conserted effort (selling for $1) without takers that if someone steps forward after the fact to "save" the structure it will be assigned to them and they will be forced to use their own money for it's upkeep (versus suing the town and costing taxpayers 2x).
Bill, card carrying democrat
- bill, dublin

Before this older structure was built, there was empty space which was older and more historic than anything in existence....to tear it down would be a decision that stands on the side of historical preservation by returning the site to its original, vacant state.
- James, Manchester

Dan of Auburn and gb of Franklin, supposing your nuanced views of Community Character are correct, the way to advance your values and showcase your refinement to your neighbors is to buy the property. Using your own money, not ours.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Though this case may certainly support the editor's claim that preservation of this particular building is bogus, the broader assertion is not valid.

Imagine a small town center with two important historic buildings separated by an old, grassy, treed square. Perhaps nothing important took place in this town square and that it is not particularly "historic". However, the area, the two buidlings together with the square, may indeed comprise a space that is greater than the sum of its parts. Selling the grassy square to build a McBurger between the two buildings may not preserve the character inherent in the site.

We need only look at the centers of our towns across the state, and country, for that matter, to see the irrversible losses of community that have occurred in the name of progress.
- Dan, Auburn

Many commenters fail to think about what this historical institution may be trying to accomplish; that being to preserve a whole town from yet another super duper market and shopping plaza. Come on now people! How many of these "super plazas" do we need? Does every town in NH need to have their own super duper complex so we all don't have to drive "more than 5 minutes to everything"? Remember why you moved here and remember why you're staying here. If you want to live in the city, move back to Boston!
- gb, franklin

This could be the most ridiculous story I have read this year. The town doesn't want the building. The historical district commission as a whole, or even a single member would kick up a dollar to buy it. Now they pull in the lawyers and courts, to cost taxpayers a bunch of money to either earn the okay to burn it down or let it fall down over the next 30 years. Great job.
- Ray Allen, Manchester

I'll bet all of those historic commission memebrs are card-carrying democrats.
- DP, Manchester

So...with no takers on a worthless structure even at $1.00, and the fire department not allowed to get valuable training with a controlled burn because of neighbor & historical committee concerns, the structure will continue to rot and decay. This makes sense...Not!

It is interesting, that folks interested in the historical value of a worthless structure are only interested when it's the taxpayers money that may be used to 'save' it. Where were these historically challenged folks when the property was offered for a dollar?

Bottom line, If there is enough interested to save the building, put it to a town wide vote. If the vote turns out that it should not be saved, let the fire department burn it to the ground before someone gets hurt on or within the property and the town is sued for neglect.

This property tax payer has had enough of mindless town purchased property that generates nothing but cost and zero dollar revenue.
- Dan, Kingston, NH