Of course they would say that, they voted against it.

Yet they allow that stupid digital sign right at the busiest intersection in town. I've been almost hit twice because the other person driving is reading the sign and not paying attention to traffice.

How is this bad business when it's preserving the history of the Kent family and this community as a greater whole? Xenias Kent built this house and we must respect that. This has gone on long enuff and the people at Standing Rock Gallerie are meddling again and wasting everyone's time.

Owning the lot but not the house you intend to move to the lot? And naturally Thurman is not backing down. Where in the world were you people while this old house was being used and abused for years and years by college kids living the "college experience"? Suddenly the house is significant? It's significance seems moot at this point.
Why not put up a marker/memorial where it stood with photos and a history lesson? Like those along the hike and bike trail and in historic places through the country? Remember it's history and importance in the community without degrading community relations?

Ruller keeps saying we must be careful with city funds. Council loans money, MY money and YOUR money, at NO INTEREST on a project that is iffy at best. I would have asked how, specifically, the house is going to generate enough money to pay the loan. Will the city foreclose if payments are not made? I agree with Kuhar and Wilson. Council should have never approved that loan based on nothing but smoke and emotion.

Please, Jason, I am allowed to make critical comments. Call them "bitching" if that is what lifts your skirt. I am well aware of the continuing saga of the Wells-Sherman house. No, I do not glean all my info from a short Patch article. My council rep, Wayne Wilson, represents my feelings quite well on this particular topic.

it's almost kite flying time.

OK, Jason. I have previously spoken my feelings on this matter. I made my after the fact comments here because i am flabbergasted that only two members of council see fit to question a rather loose deal with public money. Believe me, when I was on council from 1979 to 1983, there would have been more than two members questioning this and voting against it unless there was a tight contractual agreement.

I am not against the group buying the house and moving it. In fact I think it is great! It is a charming little house. I even thought about doing it myself but couldn't find a location close enough that I could afford to move it, and I would never take money from the university to do it because that is using public money for a private endeavor. I just think that is wrong.

Nah, not up for council again. Places to go, things to do, people to see, and so many books to read before I die.

Cheers!

Plenty of people questioned these expenses without collateral or terms plenty of times and it fell on deaf ears that couldn't hear over the steamrolling. Council moved forward with approval (most likely because they don't want to irk the local banker that's involved with this deal and want more and more and more development). KWSH's response was that they are a private nonprofit and therefore don't need to share any information on how they plan to pay this or what their finances are, no transparency required. Maybe both groups should take some nonprofit coursework 101 for better business strategies. There is a local university in town after all that surely offers such a thing.

And yes this was at meetings. It's all on council minutes records for anyone in doubt.

I don't know if any of you remember but there was a house on that lot before and there is no doubt in my mind that there will be a house on that lot once again.