We're sorry, but the page you were seeking does not exist. It may have been moved or expired. Perhaps our search engine can help.
Historic building vs. place to park
As a downtown resident who experiences daily first-hand involvement with the critical parking shortage, I wanted to add my two cents worth to the debate surrounding the proposal to convert the JAMHI building to a parking lot. During session, parking in the area becomes almost non-existent during the day. As a resident who at times has to come and go during the day, the dreaded search for parking is a daily reminder that something must be done. I wonder how people with emotional ties to the building might feel if they had to spend 10 or 15 minutes circling their home while looking for a place to park, only to find a spot many blocks away, and having to carry heavy groceries or other necessities up steep, icy hills because legislative staff were lucky enough to find a spot in front of my house (after they, too, spent time circling and hoping).
Someone recently wrote that the building should be saved because they fondly remembered being given their first penicillin shot there (a shot that made them sick). Someone else wrote that if you provide more parking, people will come and fill it up. To me, that's the point. Let's give them a chance to return some parking to the residents. Saving truly historic buildings is certainly a good idea, but no one has been willing to step up and take responsibility for a building with a questionable historic value. So, why not put the area to a far better use, and provide our area with some much needed parking relief?