The Woodstock Plan Commission met this evening and rejected the proposed demolition of Grace Hall. It approved the request by Woodstock Christian Life Services (WCLS) for the northeast and central parts of its request.
CEO Terry Egan gave a good presentation of the plan, as did others representing WCLS. Vice Chairman of the Board Paul Killinger offered Grace Hall for sale for $1.00, to anyone who will move it. Commissioner Gavers later estimated it would cost "seven figures" to move it and asked where it could be moved to.
Commissioner Bob Morrell (pictured) asked several questions about the "footprint" of the proposed development.
One resident spoke eloquently about the historical significance to Woodstock of Grace Hall, mentioning the lifelong contribution of Todd School and its headmaster, Roger Hill, to the creativity of Orson Welles. She felt that Woodstock could benefit much more from its association with three world-class figures: Welles, Eugene V. Debs and Chester Gould. She mentioned that Debs had founded the Socialist Party in the U.S. while incarcerated in the Woodstock Jail after the Pullman Strike in Chicago.
Testimony before the Plan Commission is sworn testimony. The person who will make statements to the Commission first swears to tell the truth. Earlier this month two people told me that Quinn Keefe had addressed the Plan Commission last month and stated , as Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, he represented the business community and the Chamber, and as their representative, he spoke in favor of demolition of Grace Hall.
One Chamber Board member has told me that the Chamber Board never took a position on the demolition of Grace Hall. (Did they ever even discuss it?) Because the Plan Commission Chairman had directed the audience not to repeat remarks that had been made last month, it was apparent that the Commission would weigh last month's comments with those to be made tonight.
If the Chamber Board had not voted to adopt a position in favor of demolishing Grace Hall, then the Commission needed to know that there could be a question about that position. With that in mind I asked the Commissioners to determine whether the Chamber Board had, in fact, adopted a position in favor of demolishing Grace Hall.
A request is being sent to the President of the Board of Directors of the Chamber to learn when, or if, the Board made such a decision.
© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT
2 comments:
I have been informed that the Chamber's Executive Director, Quinn Keefe, may not have said directly that the Chamber supported demolition of Grace Hall. The Minutes of the June 26 public hearing read that Quinn "...feels this (the WCLS plan) is a good design but that things can be negotiable. Mr. Keefe feels that Grace Hall is very old and would probably not pass for residential under the current Ordinances. He does feel this project is in the best interest of the community."
In response to my inquiry (7/25/08)to the Woodstock Chamber as to when the Chamber's Board had voted to support demolition of Grace Hall and had authorized Quinn to voice that decision at the June Plan Commission public hearing, the current president of the Woodstock Chamber informed me that "this will be discussed at the next Board meeting."
Hey Gus -
While the intrigue behind Quinn's statement is interesting, a more important discussion would be public "takings".
For all we know, Orson Welles may have a taken a crap in Grace Hall. Probably after those infamous dinners for 4 he used to hold without the benefit of an additional 3 dinner companions. So what?
As far as Eugene Debs is concerned, he can go to hell.
Additionally, Grace Hall itself is a handsome building. However, upon the shortest of reflections, one can see that in its current state, it can no longer be used for multi-tenant domestic purposes without significant modification and rennovations bringing it up to code, necessities that this organization cannot afford. Not to mention that in doing so, it puts the building off-limits to public tours anyway.
From where is the greater public getting the idea they have the right to appropriate private property - especially for sentimental reasons? This concept predates the idiotic Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs. the City of New London. It is more idiotic than all the impromptu roadside memorials we're now plagued with.
If this is such a significant building, let the city or a civic group step up to the plate and BUY it or lease it in order to preserve what they feel is an important structure.
Is this tenuous link with past going to produce any more than one hotel room rental each month, much less 3 more lunches on the square in the same time frame?
Get real. Put up or shut up!
DBTR
Post a Comment