Please post your questions to Jim Bell on the blog. He has kindly consented to answer them for our readers. Mr. Bell recently became involved in this project, as prior involvement would have presented a conflict of interest. The SCB very much appreciates Jim consenting to an open debate. ( I have copied and pasted a comment from Sen. Blutarsky on another post, to start the ball rolling. Ed.)
From the A-T http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/page/content.detail/id/507318.html
“Bell’s proposal, first introduced at a recent meeting of the Tiffin Architectural Board of Review, calls for a sub-grade addition at the west side of the 1884 courthouse. The new construction would be placed underground with a likely above-ground entrance at the corner of Washington and Market streets. A stairway and elevator would provide access into the lower level of the 1884 courthouse. Pedestrians would walk through the lower level of the vacant courthouse to gain access to the current annex.
Bell said the Texas State Capitol has a sub-grade addition to provide added space. The U.S. Capitol also has a sub-grade addition, Bell said.The statue of William Gibson likely would be moved to the north, to the center of the property and beside the Washington Street sidewalk, to accommodate the proposed entrance.
Phase one of Bell’s plan calls for the replacement of the dome on the 1884 courthouse, replacement of windows in the vacant courthouse, rebuilding courthouse steps and work in the central hallway in the lower level of the courthouse. The current elevator in the 1884 courthouse would remain in place until future courthouse renovation work.
Bell said the work in this phase could be paid for with $2 million from the state of Ohio added to about $546,000 that formerly was pledged by the Tiffin Historic Trust to replace the dome. No local tax dollars would be needed if those funding sources were reality, Bell said.The new construction of the sub-grade addition could be built for about $4.4 million of county funds, Bell said.
A future phase two of renovation to the 1884 courthouse could be accomplished for about $5 million, Bell said.”Future phase two courthouse renovation would complete the preservation process and return the courthouse to full use for county administration as county space needs continue to grow,” Bell said in the conclusion to his presentation to the commissioners.
Bell’s plan is to be discussed Thursday when the commissioners meet again with the Tiffin Architectural Board of Review.”
Filed under: Uncategorized
Original post:July 21, 2008 at 7:43 pm (edit)
Wow, I was impressed by Mr. Bell’s presentation. However, I think it is the wrong financial solution for a true renovation of the courthouse.
His clever numbers use $2 million from the state to repair the stairs, replace the dome for 750,000 and put in a causeway from the additions to the courthouse annex.
That leaves the county taxpayer holding the bag for at least 4 million in costs to build the underground office space. That means that we will have spent about 7 million and not have a restored courthouse. If we are going to sink 6 million into this project, it should all go to the courthouse. If not we will end up with nice new underground facilities, with no reason to move out of them, and a causeway through an empty old courthouse with nice stairs and a dome, but closed off to the public. This would be a waste of money.
Next, we barely have any nice open space downtown. How exactly are we going to benefit from transforming the front lawn to a “roof” . By the, I don’t know how secure people will feel having nice glass windows exposed to the local public who probably would like nothing better than to vandalize the courtrooms from above. I guess we could just fence off the area and provide additional security, but again that would add costs. However, I really kike the secure sallyport entrance. That is something that all plans should include.
Mr. Blutarsky,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed sub-grade addition. One of the difficulties and points of contention by the commissioners is the relative difficulty in accommodating current security standards (Supreme Court Guidelines) and handicap accessibility in the Historic 1884 Courthouse. The idea with the sub-grade addition is that these needs would be met in the addition, allowing the courthouse to house county offices such as the auditor, treasurer, recorder, etc. following full renovation.
In regard to the green lawn area - the beauty of a sub-grade addition is that the roof would be green, literally. Grass and small plants can be planted on the roof of the addition along with a paved plaza area. Skylights are on the market that would be virtually vandal resistant while allowing the needed naturally light into the addition.
Jim:
Isn’t it really true that Seneca County only has money to do half this project? What I mean is, I think the commissioners seem hell bent on demolition because that is all the county has money for. They don’t have the money to renovate or to rebuild, in my opinion.
So, under your plan, how does this save the county money? Regardless of what happens, this project has to be fiscally responsible.
What is your response? And, thank you for agreeing to be a part of this online “town hall” meeting!
Joe
Hi Joe,
You are correct that the commissioners’ stance is the county does not have the money to pay for a full renovation. If you look at the study presented on my website (link on left under “save the courthouse”), you will find that the proposed Phase I courthouse renovation could be completed with the $2 million state committment and the generous offer from the Tiffin Historic Trust to replace the courthouse dome. The remaining approximately $5 million would be paid for by the county, grants and/or future state appropriations.
Commissioner Nutter has stated the county can only borrow $5.5 million without going to the voters. I would submit to you then, that the county has the ability to borrow enough money to pay for full renovation, the remaining $2.5 million already mentioned to be provided by the state and local preservation groups.
Remember that the county-wide ballots requested a sales tax and later a property tax increase to cover the full cost of renovation. Never has a ballot gone before the voters to ask whether the majority is in favor of using county funds to pay for renovation.
Commissioner Nutter has stated that despite the fact the board has three other estimates from architects establishing the cost of full renovation at approximately $8 million, he and Commissioner Sauber prefer to base their decision in favor of demoliton on one estimate that puts the cost at $10.6 million.
The sub-grade addition concept is a proposal which would allow for a fundable addition to house current county space needs and take a big first step in the process of courthouse renovation with the state and private funds available.
Remember, the original cost to construct the courthouse is equal to $44 million in today’s dollars. One dollar spent toward renovation is a dollar spent toward protecting the investment our grandparents and great-grandparents made for us!
I hope that clears up your question. Thank you for asking.
Jim
I agree with Clevis. I don’t see the county moving other offices into the vacant courthouse. In fact, I don’t see them ever doing anything beyond phase one of this project.
As to the secure entrance being all the way on Washington, I can see people complaining that they have to walk all the way through the juvenile probate section to get to the real court building.
The problem with the repetitive use of the building being worth $44 million today is not a fair comparison. Something’s true value is only what someone will actually pay for it, and frankly no one is going to pay $44 million for this courthouse. I’m curious as to what the county’s revenue at that time is worth in today’s dollars.
I would also propose that we could always shave dollars of this project by removing at least two of the staircases in renovating the building.
I would submit that if you accept a 10 million price for full renovation, including the tower than you use $2 million (though governor is only promising 450,000 at this time) that leaves a cost of $8 million. Subtract from that $2 million to be raised from the private sector, ie Trust and Toledo Blade, and that leaves 6 million. Cut out the full replacement of two staircases and you could cut about $500,000 from the total bringing the project to the borrowing limit of the county. That’s the only way I ever see the county renovating the building. If it is done in baby steps, it will never get done.
Again, though I understand the concept of skylights and greenery, it still is an awfully small congested area.
Hey Jim, Im just curious, what would be the cost of gutting the old high school and using that for all county offices and the juvenile court building.
Going back to my response to Joe Clevis’s question, I need to clarify on item in my response. The $44 million dollar amount is actually an estimate of the courthouse’s true dollar value as estimated by appraisal and historic building experts and not the cost of construction in today’s dollars. The approximate $220,000 spent in 1884 to construct the building is roughly equal to $6 million today.
Sen. Blutarsky,
The cost of gutting and renovating historic buildings has a lot of variables. A good example of the type of renovation you’re referring to of the former East Junior High is the Wood County Records Center in Bowling Green where the former jail was completely gutted and a new structure built inside of the preserved shell. The cost of that project was approximately $3.2 million, but the building is somewhere around half the size of the former East Junior High.
Note that a similar proposal was made by MKC as an option for the courthouse and the estimated square footage cost was a total of $270 per square foot for demolition and interior rework. I would not recommend this as a strategy for courthouse renovation, because it is cost prohibitive and destroys the historic integrity of the courthouse.
Good question.
Mr. Bell, I agree that gutting the Courthouse would destroy its integrity. However, I believe that already happened when they “updated” it through the years. That’s why a restoration requires more than maintaining it as it is. A true preservation effort requires a plan to restore the interior to its true grandeur, restoring the plasterwork etc.
As to shaving more costs to the project, I believe people have ignored one obvious way to cut about another half million. The numbers from MKC were conditioned on the premise that the old courthouse’s second floor would be modifed to hold an additional main courtroom, suitable for jury trials.
I think it could easily be adapted to be the Juvenile/Probate court facility. That court only requires one main courtroom with a jury capacity (jury trials are very rare) while it needs at least two magistrate’s hearing rooms.
Doing it this way would not only save costs in the old courthouse but it would also save the costs associated with converting the annex to a juvenile probate facility.
By the way, thanks for providing the slide presentation.
For curiousities sake, what would it cost the county to demolish its old offices and to develop a two story mixed retail/government office on Jefferson street with a fake retro facade.
I don’t think the courthouse was ever “gutted”, Sen. Blutarsky. From what I’ve observed, a lot of drywall was installed to divide rooms up to make more offices for more people (which made the rooms smaller for the people who then had to use them). I’m not an architect, and I’m not even going to pretend to be able to visualize what a courthouse without the added walls might look like inside; but I’ll bet it would look a lot better, and less crowded. Look better, because the areas would not be so chopped up, as they were not intended to be; less crowded, because Mr. Bell’s sub-grade addition would take care of that problem.
Remember, too, that nobody’s saying the annex should be phased out of any possible usage. Plus, there’s still space in the current juvenile building (the old Carnegie library), the RTA building, and the other building (I can never remember the initials for it) where the Bored of Elections is housed. And let’s not forget, there’s the current commissioner’s office, the building on Jefferson that they want to either sell or do something with…..the county has no lack of usable space, which could still be used in some capacity or another, be it storage, office space, or whatever.
Mr. Bell, could you address this point, to either clarify it (if I’m assuming correctly) or correct it (if I’m wrong)?
And thank you for your time and willingness to share your information on this forum! A lot of good questions and points are being brought up here. You are very generous to take the time to help us all understand your plan.
Forgot one other question: regarding the issue of what’s restoration and what’s renovation - how do you see these two combined?
PS: The use of the word “Bored” of Elections in my previous post was purely intentional. (snicker)
Senator Blutarsky: There shouldn’t be any great cost in relocating the Juvenile and Probate courts to the 2002 Annex. That building was designed specifically for that purpose with the third floor laid out for Juvenile and the second floor laid out for Probate. The first floor area currently occupied by the Clerk of Courts was intended to be for the Commissioners, and the Title Department was to be a large meeting room. The Annex was laid out so that it could serve as temporary quarters for the Common Pleas Courts, with minimal or no changes required to later serve as Probate/Juvenile court.
Obviously the Juvenile Court area lacks rooms for probation, restitution and community service. At the time the Annex was constructed it was decided that those departments should be in a separate facility because of the volume of traffic these generate and because of security.
Another thing to consider is that the Annex was designed for the future with the thinking that someday there could be a separate Judge for both Juvenile and Probate. As the Annex stands there would be an extra courtroom, jury room and Judges chamber. This extra courtroom might serve as the second Common Pleas courtroom.
Thank you, Mr. Bell, for coming forward with this original application of an idea that has been used effectively many other places.
Is the Ohio Capitol one of those places? Perhaps people could visit our own state capitol to see a beautiful restoration. And, maybe, the governor really understands the importance of valuing our past to inspire our young and old. He moved his office back into the building and it is breath-taking to walk in there.
Ho…. Hum….
Once we shake-loose those entrepreneurial dollars from the East Coast we will be able to release space to private enterprise and develop the casino people have been wanting in the Historic District of downtown Tiffin. Surely, the ARB will not decline the gift of $40M!
Puddintame,
You are correct that the county does not lack space. Refer to the summary of spaces on my study posted at http://www.senecacountycourthouse.blogspot.com. The problem is the spaces are all disconnected and do not meet current security/accessibility requirements. The goal of courthouse preservation and/or addition would be to move most, if not all county departments back onto courthouse square which will benefit the functioning of county government immensely.
Sen. Blutarsky,
I would not venture to guess the cost of demolision and new construction at the site of the Jefferson St. building. I’d prefer to keep the emphasis on preservation of the courthouse.
Thank you,
Jim
By the way, the Ohio Statehouse restoration is a good example of a renovation project done right.
Last time I checked, the State of Ohio had deeper pockets than Seneca County too!
touché
Would you all please allow me to set aside one very big misconception about the Courthouse Annex.
1. Yes, the Annex was ORIGINALLY designed for Juvenile and Probate Court…BUT…
2. When it became apparent that the general division of Common Pleas would be moving there instead, the design was completely revamped…SO…
3. The Annex, in its present configuration, is absolutely NOT SUITABLE for Juvenile and Probate Court, and the (only 4 year old) Annex would have to be renovated and retrofitted for Juvenile Court.
So, yes, the Annex was originally designed for Juvenile and Probate Courts, but a lot of water went over the dam before that building was designed and constructed.
Joe: That’s only part of the Annex story. After the Hanson Building Fire, a county office building to house Probate/Juvenile Court and some other departments was designed to be built on that site. For those who don’t know, that was the parking lot next to Burns Electric. In the middle of the design process, a blue ribbon committee appointed by the commissioners decided that the 1884 courthouse should be restored and the annex should be built on the site of the old jail. It was also decided that the Annex should be designed in such a way that it could serve as temporary quarters for the Common Pleas Courts until the courthouse was either restored or rebuilt. As I mentioned before, some parts of the Juvenile Court system were omitted.
True enough, speak.
However, yours is also only part of the story. No one has ever mentioned how much it will cost to retrofit the Annex to house the Juvenile and Probate Courts. It will NOT be done properly on the cheap.
Hey Joe: I think you should elaborate on what needs to be done and how much it will cost. I’m still not convinced the conversion to Probate/Juvenile Court will require alot of modification.
A. Juvenile and Probate Courts seldom, if ever, need juries. The Annex has two huge courtrooms with jury deliberation facilities. Complete waste of space. Judge Kutscher has been on the bench since January 1999, and I would bet that he has not had 5 jury trials. There’s no reason why Juvenile and Probate Court needs its own large courtroom with jury facilities. They could/should have access to one of the large courtrooms more routinely employed by the general division judges.
B. The four courtrooms in the annex (including the two magistrate courtrooms) are extremely ill-equipped for Juvenile and Probate Court because most of the Juvenile and Probate Court cases involve more than two parties. Often there are more than a single plaintiff and defendant i the case. The Annex is built for two parties per courtroom. Often in Juvenile cases you will encounter:
1. Mom
2. Dad
3. Child’s advocate (attorney Guardian ad litem) [and often one for each child involved in the case because multiple kids may have divergent interests]
4. CASA
5. Department of Job and Family Services
6. Step-parents
7. Maternal grandparents who are attempting to intervene
8. Paternal grandparents who are attempting to intervene
9. Foster parents
In Probate, in a will contest action, every heir or family member might be a party. In a guardianship action, there may be several different friends or family members who file competing applications for guardianship over an incompetent person.
The benches, rails and jury boxes are all wrong for Juvenile and Probate Court
C. In the Magistrate’s Courtrooms in the Annex, there are no tables for Guardians ad litem who are often appointed in divorce and post-divorce custody cases.
D. The benches and desks in the Annex are constructed of cheap, pressed board crap.
E. In many spots in the Annex, the witness stand is invisible to either the Judge/Magistrate and/or one of the parties’ tables.
F. I am not a construction expert and I have no idea how much it would cost to retrofit the Annex and fix it so it’s not done so crummy. Using the SWAG factor (Scientific Wild A$$ed Guess), I would bet that a proper retrofit would not be touched for less than $200,000. But again, that’s just a guess on my part.
One other thing, in Juvenile all those folks could and often do have attorneys, so that number could easily be doubled.
Joe: You are talking about rearranging the fixtures in the courtroom, that’s not like tearing down walls. You lead us to believe the building would have to be gutted. In the large courtrooms some of the spectator seating could be eliminated, and the rail moved back to accommodate more tables. It seems logical that one of the large courtrooms could be used by a magistrate, since there is only one Judge.
Joe: The construction of the benches and desks in the Annex should be a clear indication of the quality that you can expect in a new courthouse. It looks like the desks and cabinets in the Annex are covered with Formica, but the rails and the front of the Judges Bench are plywood trimmed out with real wood. The 1884 courthouse is filled with red oak, cherry and southern yellow pine, which will never be duplicated in a new courthouse.
No, I never said the Annex had to be gutted, speak. However, I don’t know how the heck you rearrange the big jury courtrooms in the Annex. It just appears to me that we’d have to rearrange walls in those areas. I also believe the benches would have to be moved from the west walls of the large courtrooms to the north walls to make them user friendly for their intended use for Juvenile and Probate Court.
You are correct about removing spectator seating. It is not necessary (or appropriate) in Juvenile Court. Actually, the rail is not necessary either. In a Probate hearing requiring a big courtroom, the Probate Judge ought to be able to work with the general division Common Pleas Judges to - on rare occasions - use one of their courtrooms.
I have always had concerns about the lack of quality of the Annex. Granted, it doesn’t smell and it isn’t filled with pigeon poop like old 1884, but you are absolutely correct about the inability to duplicate quality in a new courthouse, speak! I have been in the Annex and the floor actually shakes/bounces from time to time. That does not inspire confidence!
Thanks for asking these questions.
Joe: That shake in the floor is another example of the quality you get with a new building, but it doesn’t mean the Annex is substandard construction. At one of the presentations I heard an engineer say it’s because steel framing naturally flexes. The floors in the courthouse don’t shake because they’re built of masonry.
The new river bridges are the same way. The old ones were masonry and rock solid, but if you walk across the new bridges you can feel the steel vibrate when a car crosses the bridge.
Joe: Seems like you could also remove the jury box and put extra tables there. The deliberation room could be used as a conference room.
Yep. You can remove jury boxes, but you’ll have to straighten out the floor underneath, which is elevated for the jury. You’ll also need to do something about the carpeting. You’ll have to rip out the wall that creates the walkway from the jury box into the jury deliberation room, etc.
I think you’ll have to completely start over in the big courtrooms.
My point in all of this has been that, although it was originally designed for Juvenile and Probate Courts, the design was ultimately NOT followed by the time the Annex was constructed. It is better situated for use as the world-wide corporate headquarters of Ballreich’s Potato Chips than a Juvenile Court.
Anyone ever been to a hearing involving violent juveniles from SCYC? I have, on more than one occasion. I’ve seen kids launch themselves over the tables towards the judge, and I’ve seen them kick everything in sight to try to destroy something. So one question might be, do you outfit a courtroom with cheap crap that will get destroyed and will have to be replaced often, or do you use durable stuff that will last - and has been proven to last?
Not a big point, granted, but just a thought.
You’re forgetting the loogie guard in front of the bench for when the juvenile spits at the judge!
Joe: You present some very valid points regarding the technical aspects of a Juvenile Court. It sounds like those changes could be accomplished within the perimeter walls of the existing courtrooms. It also sounds like many of those features would not have been functional in the Common Pleas Court setting.
Joe - HA! And, of course, it would have to be made of shatter-proof glass.
Spatter-proof would be more appropriate!
Clevis, I’ve heard that the third room courtrooms have to deal with the loud physical plant operations on the roof.
By the way, Clevis, you also forgot to mention that the juvenile judge also needs access to a room separate from the courtroom in which to conduct competency hearings for children according to law.
I seem to get the impression that everyone wants the finest for the adult court but its okay to rearrange some furniture on the cheap for the juvenile building. Speak easy, you seem to defend the quality of the annex and yet point to its cheapness at the same time.
Moreover, it seems that the audience in general has no idea of what goes on in Juvenile or Probate land. The idea that one magistrate’s room would suffice, is sheer insanity. Again, we as a community are perfectly content to skimp on the juvenile and probate side.
Mr. Bell, I know the old high school did not seem related to your proposal but that location is getting heavy discussion regarding the proposals to exchange sites at the preservation board meetings. Consequently, it would be nice to know if a trade of sites is more feasable than your proposal.
As to everyone that says the county has enough space, you fail to see the waste in the varied locations. It creates redundant spending in that the county has to pay to heat and light each building, it has to pay to maintain each building, it has to pay for the lost time spent moving staff from builiding to building and lastly, that is space that is not open to commercial uses or other tax generating enterprises.
Senator: My point regarding quality is that new buildings are not solidly built like the 1884 courthouse, because it is cost prohibitive. For the $5.5 million that the commissioners say they can spend on a new courthouse, you can expect quality equal to the Annex construction, which is typical of most new buildings. In fact Ben Nutter even stated that he based his cost estimates for a new courthouse on the Annex.
Here’s a question for Mr. Bell. Would it make more sense to continue using the Annex for the Common Pleas Courts, and build new space for Probate/Juvenile?
Here’s another question for Mr. Bell:
Can you compare the costs of a new courthouse (the too-small one the commissioners want to build) -vs- your plan?
Also, what about all the money that would be available to restore/renovate the courthouse? My understanding of the situation is that there are possible state and federal monies available for restoration/renovation, but nothing for new construction. The only stipulation for grant/tax credit money would be that an income-generating establishment be present in the courthouse (law library, license bureau, etc) - in other words, someone who would pay rent and have money coming in to them. I also understand that, if the proper legwork is done to get these papers filled out, upwards of 45% of the renovation/restoration cost would be paid for by those grants/tax credits.
I also understand that, on the federal end of this, anyway, Seneca County is already on the list to receive money for a project such as this one, to the tune of 25% of the cost. And that those on the state list (including Seneca Co) could receive up to almost $2 million for such a project.
And that the money available for new construction comes to a grand total of NOTHING AT ALL.
So, under those circumstances, can you compare the bottom-line costs of these 2 possible projects? The commissioners keep saying they want to be “fiscally responsible” - which option would actually BE more fiscally responsible?
Thanks again for all your contributions to this debate!
From what I know, the law library is not an income generating entity. Neither is the license bureau for purposes of the tax credit. Regarding the law library, I believe that the county provides their space or pays their rent.
I used the law library (which does collect money when cases are filed) and the license bureau as examples. There are other possibilities - visitor’s bureau, etc.
Senator: Another example is Mercy Hospital, which is the same construction as the Annex. I’m not saying this is cheap construction, the Annex and Mercy Hospital are just typical of new construction.
Sen. Blutarsky,
The former East Junior High has come up in discussions as a possibility for use as county offices. In my opinion, the building does not provide a realistic alternative because it has similar issues with handicap accessibility and would be yet another county facility remote from courthoue square. I agree that the building is architecturally and historically significant. Private sector adaptive reuse of the building, I believe is the best use of the building. Plans of this type have already surfaced. Though highly unlikely, the building would be well suited as new quarters for the Historical Society. The current Historical Society building could then be sold and returned to residential use or maybe even law offices or something of that sort.
Speak Easy,
I agree that the annex’s highest and best use is for common pleas court. That being the case, the proposed sub-grade addition would be a juvenile/probate facility.
Puddintame,
The commissioner’s $5.5 million new courthouse would cost less than full courthouse renovation, but it would also be significantly smaller.
In addition to the previous comments regarding the fact a new courthouse would be much less solidly built than the 1884 courthouse, I would add that a new courthouse would not be a physical monument to county governance or to the county as a whole. The Historic Seneca County Courthouse was built to be a monument, a symbol of the county and built to stand forever. In our throw away culture, that means something. A new courthouse would neither be a symbol, a monument nor last more than 50-75 years. The commissioners in 2060 will be dealing with the same question regarding the fate of this $5.5 million new courthouse, but I can assure you that the decision to throw it away will much easier than that we face today with a building that is not only a courthouse, but a monument to the county. Once restored, it will be a source of pride for all of us and fit for another 100+ years fo service before it’s in need of renovation again. The cycle will begin again and all the while a monument, not just a building, preserved.
Here is a link to the commissioner’s meeting of 7-14 where the phased renovation and sub-grade addition was presented:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5281468975108393329&hl=en
Jim
Regarding the former East Jr. High, the plan would be to raise that building and place the new courthouse on that site, and allowing the 1884 courthouse to be preserved and renovated.
I just have to add this: I believe the fight to save the courthouse comes down to this very issue. What I mean is, the courthouse is a monument and a symbol, not just an allocation of square footage for county use and not just about dollars and sense, though both of these are important considerations. It has already been proven that both of these considerations are surmountable. Helping everyone to understand that has been my goal.
There are two current commissioners who see the courthouse as nothing more than square footage and dollars. They do not understand why others have any other sense of the significance of the building. This is obvious not only in their words, but their decisions.
Commssioner Tim Brown of Wood County when asked why all the money was spent to restore the Wood County Courthouse. His simple answer was because it was the right thing to do and that he never questioned.
Commissioner Brown was able to see the big picture and that is what it’s all about.
THANK YOU ….stated simply but WELL Mr. Bell
As the banner that Heritage Ohio brought up for the rally not long ago said:
THIS PLACE MATTERS!
Our society has gotten so used to planned obsolescence - your car breaks down, you get another one. Your washing machine breaks down, and the parts are impossible, or too expensive, to get, so you have to buy another one. Your toaster breaks, same thing.
What has happened to workmanship and pride? Those are the values America had when our courthouse was built. It was built to LAST. Why get rid of something that’s perfectly good, as well as largely irreplaceable, when it can be fixed with a little effort? Why destroy something that solid, to replace it with something that will not last, and will not even be big enough in the first place? Soon, the commissioners would need to add onto it - at what price? - at the same time they’ll be doing repairs on the original part that they built not that long before.
The $5.5 million the commissioners want to spend now will not be for a complete courthouse - just a stop-gap measure until they need to build onto it later on. We have the room NOW. It just needs to be taken care of - it just needs a little PRIDE invested in it.
The idea of living in a county where it’s caretakers don’t care, makes me shudder.