Preservationist's view: County is not working in good faith to sell jail |
| While St. Louis County commissioners cite a host of reasons for demolishing the old jail, it has been apparent from the beginning their commitment is more a matter of emotions than good business sense. Over a number of years, they have proposed demolition as the only acceptable fate of the jail. By: Gene Shull, For the News Tribune While St. Louis County commissioners cite a host of reasons for demolishing the old jail, it has been apparent from the beginning their commitment is more a matter of emotions than good business sense. Over a number of years, they have proposed demolition as the only acceptable fate of the jail. Advocates of preservation have consistently urged no more than a good-faith effort to find a buyer who can and will find an appropriate reuse of the facility, faithful to its classical architecture and its place as one of four contributing buildings in the Duluth Civic Center Heritage Preser-vation Landmark District (ordinance no. 9262). The Duluth Heritage Preser-vation Commission, charged with oversight of these properties under City Code chapter 28A, has made its conclusions clear: Landmark-status designation runs with the property, not the owner, because the idea is to give protection to the property and not allow its demolition. This is the law! Unfortunately, the Duluth City Council and St. Louis County Board have seen fit to impose an unseemly November deadline to find a buyer. Though the county has promised a good-faith effort to successfully sell the landmark, it has unilaterally advanced the deadline to Aug. 14. The council mandated that the Duluth Preservation Alliance work cooperatively with the county. However, when the Duluth Preservation Alliance formally offered its assistance in drafting a request for proposals, or an RFP, the offer was ignored. The county significantly delayed issuance of the RFP. The resulting news release and RFP discourages interest of potential developers through both their tenor and content. The county requires a $1,000 fee for a potential developer to tour the building. What possible risks or costs justify any fee? A partial refund of $750 is promised if the developer fails to submit a proposal and supplies written documentation explaining why. (This type of letter has, in the past, been circulated as justification for demolition. What other purpose might this $750 serve?) Any health and safety issues derive from the county's neglect of its responsibility to maintain its trust obligation. In addition, the RFP emphasizes the building's deterioration. In fact, the cited condition of a host of nonstructural elements is completely irrelevant insofar as they will be removed anyway. Though the jail cells are structural elements, they do not hold the building together as claimed in the RFP. Completely ignored are the views and the stately granite exterior contributing to Daniel Burnham's City Beautiful concept. Third, the virtual-tour video provides only a very negative impression of the facility. Beginning and ending with grossly distorted pictures, the video dwells on trash and standing water that should have been removed. The video's only possible purpose is to discourage sales. Finally, the RFP neglects to inform interested parties that the jail is eligible for Federal Historic Tax Credits and other possible available programs. The county cites a number of inquiries as evidence of its good-faith efforts, yet has not revealed the sources or nature of the inquiries. The press release accompanying the RFP includes a description of efforts and failed attempts to sell the building that it cannot substantiate with any recorded information and no issued RFP or other identifiable marketing effort ever existed. Gene Shull of Duluth is a retired professional civil engineer, was a professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State University, and is a board member of the Duluth Preservation Alliance. |