Eyesore of the Month...at Third & Grand
This old building at the corner of Third & Grand is the first thing travelers see after passing City Hall. It has been vacant for as long as most people can remember and is a true blight on the community. Part of it has burned and the windows are boarded up.
According to the County Assessor's office, this property belongs to Peter M Crow, publisher of the Grove Sun Daily. It is on the books at $127,532.
Either he needs to remove it, or the city needs to condemn it and tear it down. It would make a nice parking lot for the increasing number of shoppers using downtown stores that have now taken the steps to improve their storefronts, unlike Mr. Crow. What say you, Mr. Crow?
posted by Editor | 1:23 AM
4 Comments:
James Mills started this Grove Observer because he didn't like the way the Grove Sun reported what's going on in our town. Fair enough, that's his right. Now it appears Mills is stirring contempt and taking an offensive stance in attacking Crow's organization by attacking Crow's property. What right does Mills have to try to coerce the city into tearing the structure down, just because "it's an eyesore"? That's simply an opinion.
If the building is structurally stable, does it matter what's in it or what it's used for? The building has an awning, it's very unobtrusive, and it's broken windows have been boarded up and painted. It could be used to store rolls of paper for the real print media in town, or office space, or anything else -- we don't know. It doesn't matter, because it doesn't belong to you and I.
They're taking this Downtown Revitalization concept way too far, in my opinion. Personal attacks aren't revitalization. The ugly aluminum and tin on half the buildings on Third Street are a bigger eyesore than this building. Look at Larry Hestand's KGVE/KGND and Cingular storefronts. Talk about an aluminum eyesore!! What about Fred Caldwell's ugly painted storefront windows and flashing sign at ComputerBoy? How about the general disarray of the building that houses a pool hall and bar across the street? What about the ugly metal shop building used as a lawnmower shop a few blocks east? I don't see Mills attacking these eyesores. Could Mills' attack be personally motivated? It appears so.
This small "article" isn't news, it's an editorial (which appears to be nothing more than a personal attack on Crow by Mills, considering the end: "What say you, Mr. Crow?") that should be marked as an editorial, complete with the author's name so the general public can hazard a guess as to the author's aim or reasoning in writing the piece.
I can't wait to move away from this town and you back-biting old farts. (Soon, very soon!) It's the spirit of the issue that irks me most. Of all the ugly buildings to attack, of all the ones I know to have structural problems (I've been in several of them), he chooses the Grove Sun's to attack. Shame on you, Jim, for trying to pass your personal attack off as news in your online rag. Shame, indeed.
At least I have the balls to put my name on my comments, unlike you.
And if embarassing some property owners who have long neglected their property in Grove is a way to get them to shape up, then so be it. Not everything needs to be labeled an editorial and I'm sorry you feel the blogs is an "online rag."
I began the blog because the Grove Sun was NOT REPORTING the news, not because I didn't like they way their were reporting it. I'm not attacking the Sun; but Mr. Crow long ago abandoned Grove.
As for other "eyesores" they will be spotlighted in future issues, to go along with the two previously published ones.
The Editor
I used the term online rag taking for granted that you must be from a journalistic background. Frequently news magazines and papers are referred to as rags in the business, and yours is, of course, online. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding. I meant to offense by the words, online rag.
As a matter of fact, Jim, I'm completely in favor of you reporting newsworthy events using this approach, and to you publishing in this type of forum: a modern method that's accessible to anyone. Indeed I do feel that in the Grove Observer, the news is reported and presented in more complete and accessible fashion than in the Grove Sun - be it print or their online version (which I personally feel are both very lacking). Please don't feel I was attacking the way that you report legitimate news or your technical methods of presenting it. (Although I do wonder if you write everything yourself or if you're bordering on copyright infringement by presenting someone else's work without the proper credit.)
But in all fairness, it shouldn't be the purpose of a legitimate news source to embarrass some property owners in an effort to get them to shape up. Anyone with an iota of sense would support of your Constitutional right to free press granted by the First Amendment; I just feel that in proper journalistic style, your editorials should be labeled as such.
It's simply a misnomer to call this post news. Now when the city condemns the building, that's legitimate news! I've noticed some of your other posts are clearly labeled An Editorial..., so why not present your opinions professionally by calling them what they are?
If it's your intent to help clean up Grove's downtown area, may I suggest presenting your complaints to your city councilperson, or in an open city council meeting? If it's true that Mr. Crow has "abandoned Grove", then public sentiment alone isn't going to make him undertake the fiscal burden of cleaning up his storefront property. Public sentiment, properly presented and labeled as such, can only draw attention to the matter; your city government could certainly be of help if there are building codes or city ordinances that need to be enforced or enacted.
Err, I meant no offense by calling it an online tag.
Post a Comment
<< Home