One or Two Things

Okay, well it seems I have officially settled into the state of boredom.  So, to help relieve that little problem, I figured I would continue to pound the keys a bit here and there. What the heck, it may take several days for any particular post to appear, because it may take several days to actually write it.

So when a thought or two pops into my head, why not jot it down. Speaking of a thought or two ...

Two old former school buildings. Two different sections of our fair haven. Two really differing philosophies regarding the future of each. Tell me where you are at doesn't matter.

If you don't think there was a reason, at least in part, why the one in the north receive a proposal for housing and the one in the south did not, well not sure you are applying the disinterested and reasonable person standard.

It would seem to me what we need here is a firm determination of exactly what we are willing to accept for the future of the buildings and/or sites.

We have tried the "let's see what we can get" approach.

If preservation is the ultimate goal, what level of preservation? Complete restoration? Perhaps historical "in character" renovations. Slate looking roof as opposed to slate roof.  Period accurate rather than old building specifications? What less than complete "accuracy" is acceptable?

I heard the statement made at a meeting regarding Oxford, and the one proposal submitted for that site, that the people of North Fairhaven have to understand that this is not just a North Fairhaven issue, but a town issue.  Absolutely true. Just as the same is absolutely true about about Rogers and those people who live in the surrounding neighborhood.

Should the price one can get for the buildings be the determining factor? I would absolutely say it does not have to be. If it isn't though, what should determine the future of either building is a clear and definitive process as to goals and objectives. Time frames, reverter clauses, and performance bonds.

Make that fact known upfront and to everyone, along with whether you are willing to forego "complete" accuracy or not.

The key here is what standard are people willing to accept from any responsive bidder; and, the key words there are "any" and "responsive". "Any" meaning literally any. Not just a personal preference. "Responsive" meaning in response to the terms and conditions of the RFP not simply because you submitted something.

 If the intent is simply to save the four walls and create a historical looking building well heck, that would make it easy for a whole lot of people. We have some fine examples of that presently.  If the intent is to restore the building(s) to original look, with original/or as near as possible materials, well that becomes a different story.  But decide up front what is acceptable.

There are in fact some who are holding out for historically accurate restoration. That is fine, but if that is what we are going to do, we best make sure that are stringent requirements in the RFP and other following documents.

If we have in fact the obligations we are constantly told we have (well at least to one of the buildings anyway), we also have the obligation to ensure that whatever entity or person the buildings are turned over to will meet those obligations, based on our vision as a whole town and not theirs.  We have the obligation to make sure it gets done, within a reasonable time frame, set and established.  

I am all for trust. I am even more for verification.