Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but there's no way such a regulation or law would pass. Many, if not the majority of such structures are in the hands of private individuals. Such a thing would be seen as unreasonable intrusion into private matters. In addition, think of the level of oversight that would be needed, resulting in extra financial burdens for local, state and federal gov't. Not disagreeing with the sentiment at all, but looking at it realistically, I don't see it as feasable. Just my opinion....
Well, no one thought that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of broad terms for eminent domain either. Perhaps we could do a "reverse" of how they ruled and show that a house, such as the Jenkins House, could be used to drum up more tourism dollars. (Since their ruling basically stated that property could be taken if the property could be used for greater financial gain.) Hence, the house would HAVE to be saved.
Hopefully this "new coalition" that is mentioned in today's (July 12) news will help end the loss of CW sites in Murfreesboro. It is unfortunate it took the loss of the Jenkins House to get this much interest. Hopefully the town of Murfreesboro will start to understand...that preservation can bring tourism. I love Stone's River...so sign me up.
Hmmm...the only way I can understand this is if the house is no longer safe. While preserving history is great, you can't leave up a death trap just for the purpose of salvaging a piece of the past. The light is on though in one of the windows (an upstairs one) so im not sure how bad of shape it is in, or how long ago that pic was taken. In all, it is sort of sad that this is happening, but urban and community developers seem to be into battlefield land. I guess it brings in the $$ somehow...not sure why that would be, but I know my husband would give his right arm for a house on confed. ave in gettysburg
All I know is that the owners wife was using the house as a bridal boutique business as late as 2001, so I'd have to guess it wasn't that bad. A close look at the roof seems to indicate that a new one may have been needed, but I'm no expert in the field.
You have chosen to ignore kaymorrow. click Here to view this post
Yes the Jenkins house was structurally sound, but it needed a lot of work. The owners left it for at least two years with no electricity, so you can imagine. If it had been sold to someone who cared about history, it could have been brought back to its original beauty with matching dollars from the state because of what it was.
I found out very recently that a couple was looking to put a contract on the Jenkins house a few days before its demolition. The realtor, Larry Sims, gave the couple the impression they might get the house. On Monday (after the demolition on Saturday), the devastated couple finally got in touch with Larry Sims who said "well, you can't buy a house that's not there."
When the Daily News Journal contacted Larry Sims about the demolition, he told them he "wasn't aware the house was to be razed." He did admit that the value of the land was "likely to increase considerably with the home's demolition and removal of some 30 trees later this week."
How is it possible for a realtor to NOT know a house is going to be demolished on a commercial property he is selling??? He must think we are all fools, just like the City of Murfreesboro does.
I thought the exact same thing. There's a follow-up also:
"The Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission chose not to remove a house built in 1838 from the National Register of Historic Places — even though the building was demolished in June.
As a formality, the commission was instructed by the Tennessee Historical Commission to conduct a public hearing regarding the removal of the Hiram Jenkins House from the national list that protected the home from being altered or destroyed with federal funds.