rabble wrote:Whether or not this survives the Walker cuts is anybody's guess since all four of them were counting on loans and subsidy.
This mentality illustrates why redevelopment of the property has languished for so long.
What becomes of the property and how it should be paid for is not a state issue. This is entirely in the hands of Madison. The city has had plenty of time to make something happen and state action has never been and still is not a limiting factor. The issue has been a lack of enough interest or support for the costlier options that preserve the building in some way. The city has been sitting on this property since 1997. The city acquired the property with no clear plan to reuse or maintain the property. That lack of planning resulted in serious deterioration. Each year the deterioration gets worse. Redevelopment bids that preserve the building in some form want subsidies because the cost of saving the building is so high. Those subsidies are basically payment from the city to have the building preserved. If the city (or another outside group) can't come up with the funds to cover that incentive, then the city should abandon the plan to preserve the building and accept the highest bid for the property. It will not get any cheaper to save the building and quite frankly there is nothing significant or particularly special about it.
Just because something is older doesn't mean it should be preserved.