COST, CAUTION GUIDE DEMOLITION EFFORTS

It is one thing to talk about tearing down an old hospital and an old hotel. It is another thing to determine if that is the best course of action and, if it is, to figure out who will bear the expense.

Two high-profile targets are currently in the scopes of various groups and individuals calling for the razing of the old St. Francis Hospital on Good Hope Street between Pacific and Ellis streets and the former downtown Marquette Hotel at Broadway and Fountain. The reason. The long-vacant buildings are variously described as eyesores or safety hazards.

But if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are those who are protective of the old hotel, mainly because of its distinctive Spanish Revival architecture. There are fewer supporters of the old hospital, although various plans for rehabilitating it have been proposed over the years.

The bottom line, both for those who want the buildings torn down and those who would like to see them converted to other uses is the same: money. Efforts to turn the old hospital into a senior housing center were stymied by the amount of money it would take to bring the old building into compliance with current building codes. And prospective buyers of the old hotel tend to back off once they calculate the cost of undoing years of neglect. Both buildings, it is said, present potential environmental hazards because of asbestos.

Both buildings are privately owned -- the hospital is tied up in the estate of deceased owner Peter Kern, and the hotel is owned by perpetual congressional candidate Thad Bullock -- but appear to have little market value because of the rundown conditions and high costs of rehabilitation. In fact, groups that support razing the buildings recognize the cost of demolition would probably far exceed the values of the properties.

And it doesn't appear that the owners of either building have the financial wherewithal to pay for the demolitions themselves. That could become an issue if the city, for example, condemned the structures and ordered that they be torn down.

But before that step is taken, there are several hoops to go through. Although there is a popular notion that the buildings ought to come down, cities can't take such drastic action without good reason. And if it does get to that point, the city very likely would wind up bearing the cost of demolition with the only hope of recovering those funds being a higher price tag if the properties are ever sold.

City taxpayers may well question whether they should pay as much as half a million dollars -- that's one current estimate -- for tearing down each of the structures. The high cost of dealing with community eyesores can sometimes have a calming effect when emotions are running high regarding the fate of someone else's property.