There once was a building standing proud for one hundred years through many business changes and owners.
There once was a building standing in the midst of decay but it stood proud and survived.
There once was a building in need of some work to help it survive and the city offered help to keep the facade solid.
There once was a promise by all to keep the building strong and proud for many more generations.
There once was a building, short and proud with a solid facade financed by the public treasury.
There once was a building in downtown Sioux Falls the people of our little town on the prairie felt was important enough to trust future owners with public treasury to keep it solid.
The proud building stood with a new facade, new use and a bronze plaque.
Then there was a plan to tear down the proud building with the new facade and plaque.
The proud building won a reprieve when someone forgot to buy the building before announcing it was going to be gone.
and then….
The proud building was sold to a new owner with a big new plan to change it one more time.
The once proud building is now gone.
Where is the facade bought and paid for by the public treasury?
The dumpsters are now gone with the public’s facade and once proud plaque.
As this now empty spot is to be made into something else, we ask the question: where is public’s money?
The public treasury paid for a once proud facade and none of it was saved, not a brick, not a window, not a plaque.
When the owner brought in the dumpsters to clean up his mess, didn’t the developer receive an insurance claim to pay off the debts and allow them to put a new building up?
Where is the facade money to replenish the city’s fund?
Since the building is gone, where is the city’s money from the insurance?
Doesn’t the city deserve to get it’s money back now?
The building is gone and so is the facade easement program.
Why is there no protection for the city treasury when this city property is destroyed? If you are driving down the street and run into a light pole, your insurance company has to pay the city for the loss. Why is this different?
You do not build 100 years of historical past with new brick and mortar. The plan is for a new building, new design and no connection to the past except for a grave marker to remind those who care to remember.
The city property was destroyed through no fault of the once proud building, why are we letting the owner of the building keep money no one else would be entitled to keep? The owner must repay the façade easement the owner was entrusted to protect.
Bruce Danielson