March 25, 2004

The Armouries

I acknowledge that my Opinion in the 24th March 2004 edition of the Windsor Star was controversial. (See Page: Letters to the Windsor Star) Purposefully so. The dilemma in which I find myself is a conflict between the city’s economic health and an inevitable increase in the cost of governance. I did not call for the wrecking ball. I simply do not wish to see any further increase in unnecessary spending.

Hailing from London, England, I’m not impressed with older buildings that have outlasted their original use. After WW2, London (Eng) had to make many difficult decisions about the retention, or not, of many old, handsome and sentiment laden buildings. They swallowed hard and moved on. In the long run, the citizens of London benefited.

I am extremely concerned about the many un-funded parties dreaming up fringe uses for the Armouries Building. All of the suggestions so far, will most certainly increase public expenditure. Taxpayers tell me that their burden is too heavy. There is no compelling reason to add to the current pressure on the city’s finances.

I believe that London, Ontario, had a similar problem. They sold to the private sector and their old Armouries building’s façade is now incorporated into a fine modern hotel. Selling to the private sector does not necessarily mean the inevitability of the wrecker’s ball. However, the decision must be in the hands of the buyer.

It is my contention that the citizens of this city will be well served when the Armouries building property is converted to a tax paying entity.

Al Nelman