Gahan taking notes as "Landmarks Commission denies petition to grant historic status to Water Company building."

Louisville's money-fluffing greaseball Ed Glasscock is one of the single most unctuous fucks I've ever encountered on the local scene.

Another purely "negative" report on Thursday's Bridges Unauthority meeting.

From yesterday's Landmarks Commission meeting (link below):

Speaking against the petition was local attorney Ed Glasscock, who said the current building “is simply out of place at this site, and to force it to remain in the middle of the Omni Hotel development is indefensible.” Glasscock said such a move would “waste a golden opportunity to substantially advance our city,” adding the hotel would create jobs, “attract upscale tourists to our bourbon capital,” and add a “top-level grocery.”

Glasscock added that “it’s unfortunate that a few citizens feel that they can dictate what Louisville’s downtown should be.”

Quoting a comment at IL: "That was intended as irony, right?"

More to the point:

Responding to the criticism of her petition, (Martina) Kunnecke condemned the Fischer administration — and those preceding it — for abandoning preservation and the needs of downtown residents, and only serving the interests of high-end tourists.

“Unfortunately, we have been held captive by not one, but two administrations that don’t necessarily speak the truth on (historic preservation) matters, or at least their actions bely their words,” said Kunnecke. “Our agenda is to stop placating backroom deals. Our agenda is to really honor our history and our heritage, and help our community recognize that we go beyond bourbon. We have fabulous history in this community, and we keep tearing down every vestige of it.”

Just remember: Jeff Gahan venerates ... adores ... idolizes Greg Fischer. Did you really think Gahan is clever enough to conjure his demolition-first template from thin air?

If so, Jeff has some corporate welfare -laced Reaganomics to sell you.

Landmarks Commission denies petition to grant historic status to Water Company building, paving way for full demolition of Omni Hotel block, by Joe Sonka (Insider Louisville)

By a vote of 6 to 3 on Thursday, the Metro Historic Landmarks and Preservation Districts Commission rejected a petition to designate the 105-year old former headquarters of the Louisville Water Company as a local historic landmark, widely seen as the last potential roadblock to a full demolition of the downtown block where the proposed $289 million Omni Hotel project would stand.

The petition with over 200 signatures was filed at the last minute in September by Martina Kunnecke of the group Neighborhood Planning and Preservation, to the chagrin of officials in Mayor Greg Fischer’s administration, who say they plan to dismantle and store the facade of the Colonial Revival-style building. Preservationists had wanted at least the facade of the building incorporated into the Omni project, but the developers rejected that idea, noting that Omni’s contract with the city required that all structures on the block be cleared.

Dunman: "Development without preservation isn’t a risk worth taking."

If Louisville is ranked the 11th-poorest city in the country, what does it say about a place like New Albany, which for decades has happily agreed to be the low-rent whipping boy of the Louisville metro area in exchange for reliable slumlord campaign contributions and extractive heavy industry "development" models?

(An aside: As I write, the city council is about to trumpet the "reform" of our building codes, a revision that will not include rental property registration, with both major parties evidently agreeing that it would be far too expensive to raise the bar, when a lowered bar affords so many practical campaign donations)

Back to Dunman's essay. It's like we said during the time of Mainland's River View project: Who's going to buy the pricey condos?

Couldn't the same money be spread out between historic rehabs and selected infill, and achieve better results?

Wouldn't the millennials be more likely to live in more affordably priced properties in neighborhoods near downtown?

Of course, they'd be more inclined to do so if we put the genuine clamp on slumlords and made our streets walkable and bikeable -- but 79-year-olds like Irv Stumler, extractors like Tiger Trucking and rental property owners like mayoral candidate Kevin Zurschmiede) stand in the way of rationality ... don't they?

So, why do we tolerate them?

Joe Dunman: Development without preservation isn’t a risk worth taking, by Joe Dunman (Insider Louisville)

... Louisville is not a rich city, after all. In fact, it was recently ranked the 11th-poorest city in the country. Its young professionals are few in number and aren’t, as a group, paid very handsomely. And housing is not so limited or overpriced that quality apartments, condos, and even single-family homes can’t be found for affordable prices very close to a downtown that remains mostly a daytime destination for white-collar commuters.

New residential developments like the proposed condo building in Butchertown are risky endeavors. And without preservation restrictions, there is a danger that historic structures will be lost to new projects that end up vacant or underutilized if demand for pricey condos and studio apartments fails to fully materialize.

Metro council's Yates: “And we’ve reached out to people all over."

Yeah, he seems like the "reaching out" sort, all right.

Where have I heard all this before?

Council members clash over change to landmarks ordinance, at LEO's "Fat Lip" blog.

Last night was the final public hearing on the proposed changes to Louisville’s historic landmarks ordinance, which would give the full Metro Council final say instead of the Landmarks Commission, and require that the majority of signatures on petitions to protect a landmark be from citizens within a 1-mile radius of the property ...

... Speaker after speaker strongly condemned the changes, to healthy applause from the crowd. One common complaint was that the commission has experts in this feild who understand the issue, and council members are not only lacking such knowledge, but might be tempted to side with developer/business interests in order to block a site from being landmarked.