LETTERS: CITY WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE TO SACRIFICE DOWNTOWN AREA

To the editor:

I must respond to Jay Eastlick's Oct. 30 column, "Like it or not, there is a market in this city for substandard housing." The words "substandard housing" could be replaced with the word "cocaine" and be every bit as true. Neither is acceptable.

He assumes that the only options for buildings such as the Marquette Hotel and the old St. Francis Hospital are either leave them along or tear them down. The concept of tax abatements to save a landmark such as the Marquette are not foreign to forward-thinking municipalities. The encapsulation of asbestos can make the renovation of a building more cost effective than its demolition.

Eastlick also assumes that only middle- and upper-income people who would want to buy a home in the downtown area are those who are in hopes of making a killing when the neighborhood comes back. Is the idea of a culturally and economically diverse neighborhood out of the realm of possibility? I hope not.

Any city that permits expansion of the city by sacrificing its downtown area is being fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers. The inner city already has water, sewers, roads and sidewalks. Timely maintenance of existing infrastructure always costs less than the building of new. It is not unreasonable for taxpayers who have chosen to live in an established neighborhood to expect the city to do anything in its power to prevent property values (the tax base) from falling. The adoption of the minimum property maintenance code will do this.

JON G. COLBURN

Member

Downtown Neighborhood Association

Cape Girardeau