![[Masthead]](http://www.fstribune.com/images/nameplate.png)
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (37)
Marsha Cowen owns the property located at 102 S. Hill which was condemned by the city on May 6, 2008, because it was deemed unsafe. Cowen and her family have owned the property for approximately a year and were looking to gain one more month to make the standing structure safe.
"It would be a shame to tear this building down," Cowen said.
During the regular Fort Scott City Commission meeting Tuesday, Cowen told commissioners the Hill Street property was the last of 12 properties she and her family have restored in Fort Scott. She said they have replaced the broken windows and are waiting for the weather to cooperate in order to fix the foundation and roof. Fort Scott City Code/Zoning Administrator Amanda Proffitt said this property was the only property owned by Cowen to be condemned and that is should have been moved up the list.
Proffitt added there has not been any work until two weeks ago and the work that has been done was done illegally because no permits have been filed.
Neighborhood resident Michael Bryant approached the commission in support of Proffitt. He said the property has been an eyesore for about 10 years. Another neighborhood property owner, Jim Shoemaker, also approached the commission in support of Proffitt and the demolition of the structure.
Despite Cowen's work around the city with other properties, the commission voted unanimously to move forward with the demolition. Cowen's property was one of four scheduled for demolition: the structure and shed at 914 E. Wall St., the garage at 1523 E. Wall St., and the structure at 201 N. Crawford St., will also be demolished.
The commission also conducted the following business on Tuesday:
* Approved to spend up to $20,000 on a new vehicle for the chief of police. The chief said he will be shopping locally for a used car.
* Accepted the Fire Department's application for the Fire Prevention Grant. The application requests $16,000 for a fire extinguisher training system as well as repairs and upgrades to the fire safety trailer. The grant would require the city to match 5 percent of the total cost.
* The Fire Department was given approval to apply for the Firefighting Apparatus Vehicle Grant for the amount of $225,000. The money would go toward the purchase of a new truck to replace the oldest of the fleet. The grant would require the city to match 10 percent of the total cost.
* Accepted an Agreement of Easement for the property at 705 S. National. The easement was acquired for repairs on the deteriorating retaining wall near 7th Street and National Avenue.
* City Attorney Bob Farmer informed the commission that citizens who would like to file a complaint to the Federal Communication Commission against Suddenlink can pick up information from City Hall.
* Authorized the return of a police motorcycle which was donated to the department sometime during the 1990's. The motorcycle has not been used in years.
* Decided to provide The Bourbon County chapter of the American Red Cross with $2,500. The city will evaluate its budget in August and determine if another $2,500 would be available.
* Approved the application by the city for funding from the Kansas Department of Transportation through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The funding requested would be for the resurfacing of National Avenue from Wall Street to Sixth Street and National Avenue from Linker Street to Wall Street.
* Fort Scott Director of Economic Development Dale Bunn informed the commission the Phoenix Committee has a surplus of $400,000. The commission approved the committee's requests to KDOT for the uses of extra funds.
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please
How does the Codes Officer decide whose properties will be exempt from the rules and whose won't? We have a property in our neighborhood which was condemned last spring and hasn't been touched since June when the foundation was dug out leaving a very dangerous situation. Despite calls and emails, both the city commission, city manager and the Codes Officer refuse to "touch" it. Says what everyone here already knows doesn't it. While I support code enforcement, this must be done in a fair and reasonable manner which means everyone gets the same consideration. I look forward to major change in the city commission next month and this includes Commissioner Adams who was supposed to support Code Enforcement and has not answered my emails concerning code enforcement and it was brought up at one of the commission meetings recently that he, himself, has a building without a roof and with debris on the property. Also, it is my understanding that the City doesn't have sufficient funds to bid out the buildings for demolition so ask yourself what is behind not allowing another month for the foundation to be complete on this property??? Things never change in Fort Scott. Let's make the city government accountable for its actions in all of the business that they conduct.
Amen. Our elected officals in the city are, in my opinion begining to act like our elected officals in Washington.
Do as I say, not as I do.
And your right, somethings never change.
The City found the Stout Building at 11 E. First St, so dangerous that they evicted the residents over one weekend. On August 21, 2007 The City declared the Stout Building at 11 E. First St. dangerous and unsafe and gave the owner 60 days to decide whether to repair the numerous codes violations and hazardous living conditions found in the structure or to demolish the building. That was the last anyone ever herd of on this property and of course there still is a for sale sign in front of it. If the city is going to demolish even one building then they need to go back and address this first. I think when we vote for City Council Members we need to vote for NEW BLOOD to sit on the decision thrones. We need to be fair and impartial when making decisions.
YES! THIS STRUCTURE NEEDS DEMOLISHED! SO DOES THE STOUT BUILDING! AS WELL AS NEW BLOOD IN FORT SCOTT CITY OFFICIALS! BUT, TO GET NEW BLOOD FORT SCOTT NEEDS TO FIND FUTRE BUSINESS INVESTMENTS FOR THE TOWN TOO!
This is terrible. Another Historic home demolished. And this one was at least going to be fixed up. I know Marcia, know the work she does. Granted she is an outsider, that seems to rile the good ol' boys, but she has invested a very large sum of money into this community. I am sorely confused, we would rather have a run down vacant house sitting on the list to be demolished, as opposed to having a fixed up home? The logic does not make sense. This house, according to Michael Bryant, and Jim Shoemaker, has been sitting for 10 plus years in this state, now that Marcia has bought the home and plans to fix it up, it is time to get rid of it. Hmmm....could this be because of a certain someone having a home for sale on this street??? I think someone should look into the ties between Ms. Proffitt and the aforementioned individuals. In this current economic situation do we really need to be trying to push investors out of this community?? I really am beginning to think that the city commissioners would prefer to have this town empty and broke, before they would like to see us succeed. Maybe I need to speak on their level, just think of the tax dollars that a fixed up home would bring in to the city, as opposed to none that will not be brought in now. Just remember this when it comes time for election....vote the whole mess of the "unanimous voters" out of office. Lets elect people that care about the town, not just the same people that sit on the board out of some sick sense of self importance.
I cannot believe they would not give the property owner time to fix the building. I have seen what she has done to her other properties. When they are finished they are a bonus to our community. If an owner is willing to fix the property, then give them the time they need. I agree the city needs to finish with old business first. The Codes officer is a little over zealous in her work.
City Manager Joe Turner, Economic Development Director Dale Bunn, Codes Administrator Amanda Proffitt & others are just puppets put in place by City Attorney Bob Farmer & Human Resources Director Bob Johnson whom by proxy serve at the pleasure of unmentioned business leaders. Our City Council that appoints our Mayor is the rubber stampers to make everything legal. Now that this is clear you can either win the lottery or follow along like good little citizens and let the deciders do their jobs.
It kills me to see and hear the amount of time that Ms. Wood has spent complaining about Suddenlink. Don't get me wrong I am by no means a fan of the company and their practices, but really, does this really even warrant a mention in a council meeting? Let alone the amount of time this subject has been given. Hmmm, a paid city employee spending time compiling information packets at City Hall. Really Mr. Farmer?? I know there has got to be a better use for yours and other city employees time. Does it upset me that they dropped a few channels from their line up, sure since my Tivo hasn't caught up to it yet. Oh and Ms. Wood and Mr. Farmer, you may end up looking really foolish over this once you realize that this was not a suddenlink decision, this was a decision by the stations and the FCC. But perhaps now that Ms. Woods has less stations to watch she can now get up off the couch and get out into the community where she can actually see things that need to be done. The council sits in city hall twice a month and spends money like drunken sailors, get off your tails and see how poorly the down town streets are that we paid so much for, yes I know that it was mainly fed money. But guess what??? We paid those taxes too!!!! The feds in trusted the city to make sure those funds were well spent. Try driving downtown lately??? I would think that maybe a better job could have been done??? Needless to say Ms. Wood, how about spending your time and the city's worrying about things that matter, specifically CITY business. Not dwelling in a private matter between a private company and their private subscribers.
After a little research, I found that this issue on 102 S. Hill started at the May 6, 2008 Commission meeting. Now, the interesting thing is that another property, 759 S. Barbee, was brought up at that same meeting. Drive by the property at 759 S. Barbee and especially look at the south side. OK, why is one being demolished while the other stands? Of course I know the answer. I would encourage everyone who is tired of the same old same old to contact the City Manager (right now Bob Farmer is the acting city manager) and your (that's funny, your) city commissioners as they have an easy form at the City website to do just that and tell them to reverse this decision because it is wrong on every level. Also, do you think that this is being pushed through so hard right now because the city commission is getting ready to be cleaned up? Please contact your public officials as you might be next, maybe not tomorrow, but....
"City Manager Joe Turner, Economic Development Director Dale Bunn, Codes Administrator Amanda Proffitt & others are just puppets put in place by City Attorney Bob Farmer & Human Resources Director Bob Johnson whom by proxy serve at the pleasure of unmentioned business leaders. Our City Council that appoints our Mayor is the rubber stampers to make everything legal. Now that this is clear you can either win the lottery or follow along like good little citizens and let the deciders do their jobs."
So the HR Manager and City Attorney call all the shots? No offense intended, but your understanding of the power structure in City Hall is about as far from reality as one can get. Certain personnel moves in the last 3 years would contradict your statement on that matter, to say the least.
I was unable to attend the meeting last night, but I honestly agree with the decision made. I appreciate what the owner has done for the community, but it's been an issue that has been going on since May of '08, and I think that was sufficient time to get the building up to code.
As it is, we get feedback from people all the time about how trashy the town looks and how we need to be more aggressive with code enforcement, and I feel we give out way too many extensions as it is. We're too nice about it a lot of the time, which is something EyeOpen points out correctly.
What about the old Stout building Nick? Why is it exempt?
A) There have been inquiries from prospective buyers on the Stout building, which shows there is some interest in developing it.
B) Is what downtown needs right now another giant hole?
Actually I'd say B takes precedent over A.
C) We also don't need to tear down a house that has great potential.
Downtown seems to be more important to the city than the people are. To allow 90 more days for 102 S. Hill to be renovated would be a great way of showing that the city council cares for the common citizens of this town. If the house is not up to code within 90 days then I personally would understand action to condemn this property. Prove me wrong. Give it a chance. I bet it will be the nicest house on that block.
Nick,
Kinda Confused, the stout building is exempt because there is an interest in developing it, yet you plan to demolish a home that was in the process of being developed?? I am not the smartest person on earth but it does not take much brains to say, hmmm this lady is and has been investing her time and money into making this city a better place, so lets go demolish this home and yet let the Stout building sit in a much more visible part of town, falling apart. I encourage everyone to drive by 102 Hill. This was once a beautiful home and was going to be again. Compared to numerous other homes in town this was a good home! Yes it needs work, lots of work, but I would prefer to live next to this home that is in the process of being fixed up, than the fixed up home with the garbage heaps in their front yards like so many in Fort Scott. All this because the home had plywood on the windows to keep the vandals out...can't blame her there. And as far as this having been an ongoing issue since may, it has not been that long, and Nick have you ever tried to renovate 12 homes in a year? Not to mention when you have the codes officer, Ms. Proffitt, telling you to go from one house to antoher, not letting you focus on one home at a time. This is not a large corporation that is doing this. This is one of the sweetest ladies you will ever meet, who fell in love with this town and is trying to do her part to help fix it up. We should be giving this lady, a fine citizen a medal, not tearing down her home. I once had the utmost respect for you Nick, not any longer. You seem to be just as bad as the rest of the board. Tear down the old homes even if they are being fixed up. For what??? Anyone heard of a large investment into this community?? I really don't think anyone is knocking at the door to build new homes in this town. On one hand we want the Historic Charm of this once wonderful city, yet on the other hand we tear down these homes to replace them with what?? At best a cookie cutter home like every other town in this country. I guess we can just wait another 30-50 years until we are a suburb of KC and than we can have every home look just the same as they do there. Drive down any street in olathe, they all look the same.
According to the Commission meeting minutes, on January 6, 2009, the property at 102 S. Hill was given 90 days to either improve or be torn down with work starting by 16 January 2009. All the sudden it is being torn down. Maybe something about a building permit? Well, when I called because there was not a building permit on a house that had the foundation dug out with debris all around the yard, I was told the owner had not started work, I informed the Codes Officer that he had and also had to explain to the City Manager that the work had been started (worked two days last June and not touched since) because "somehow" he was also misinformed. So, wouldn't math skills be an important skill for city officials? January 6 plus 90 days is not March 10 - am I wrong on that? Do you really need to ask why Jim Adams is allowed to have a blighted building without a roof, why the Stout building which was condemned and made the City really look like a disaster in the news is allowed to be on the market (and any building might sell in the future but that doesn't mean it is not a dangerous or blighted property - give me a break). Logic and commonsense?
I have more sympathy for someone who lives in their own house and struggles to keep up on the maintenance than someone who buys up properties for profit and can't fix them in a reasonable amount of time.
A business shouldn't buy properties only to let them sit for over a year and still look like the house is falling in on itself.
I thank anyone wanting to put money back into housing in Fort Scott but don't get in over your head and not be able to fix them up in a timely manner.
Fort Scott does not have to worry about tornados ripping through and tearing down the wrong buildings....It's got CITY HALL!!!
Dear Community,
Our elected officials are chosen to represent us,and our forfathers and mothers. The blood sweat and tears they spent creating this community
should be protected and preserved. In the case of the property at 102 south hill and the owner Marcia Cowen..... this property has been abolished prematurly. The property had finely fallen in to "caring hands"and so...."WHAT HAPPENED???" This was a historcial building and should have been preserved for its beauty and design. Marcia Cowen is not a stranger to this community as she has family and friends that lived here and ownd businesses for decades. She has been passionate about helping in the restoration of our neglected homes in our neighborhoods. She has been working in the area for the past 3 years rehabbing these buildings. You can view some of these projects at 8 N. Judson, 602 S. Barbee, and 511 Osbun. These have been completly rehabbed for the community. As for the property located at 102 S. Hill....the previous owner left the property in disrepair for years....Marcia Cowen purchased the said property 14 months ago and put it on the drawing board for full restoration.... Unknowingly to the owner Marcia Cowen 6 months after purchasing the property....codes enforcing officer....Amanda Proffitt posted the said property for demolation. Several months later...Amanda requested work to start on the building...other properties purchased by Marcia Cowen previous to the Hill house...had to be put on the back burner due bad weather and Amandas request to start on the Hill house.
When Amanda requested all the boards to be removed from the windows on the house....a crew was hired and they were removed..Then a Amanda requested all the broken sideing to be replaced...a crew again...was hired and all the siding was replaced...After the boards were removed from the windows...Amanda then requested to Marcia the windows be fixed and or repaired... again...a cnother crew was hired and paid to repair all the windowes....Then...Amanda requests Marcia to refirbish all the paint on the house..and again...another crew was hired... and again... paid to refirbish all the needed paint on the house.
By the time of the city council committe meeting on 3/10/2009, where several members were absent...
all of Amanda's requests had been fufilled...for some reason Amanda began to request the building to be demo'd,despite Marcia Cowens arguments to save and preserve her building!!! isnt it interesting...the demo equipment, a bobcat tractor, a back-hoe and 2 dump trucks...were dispatched within in 12 hours of the meeting to 102 Hill st. by 8AM the next morning??? She is getting as fast as Pizza Hut!!!
This is an astrotisty!!! It is a shame to have lost this building and the revenue...
Do we want our city neighborhoods to look like swiss chesse?....with empty lots in every neighborhood???
Marcia Cowen and her family are very worried and confused about the building and rehabilation process conducted by the Ft Scott City Council commitee. The current property to be restored is 123 S. Wilson.... the (NE corner of 2end and Wilson) the plans for this home is a complete restoration.
Marcia and her family are having second thoughts about investing any more money under these circumstances. They would like to remain hopeful....but lets face it...are these efforts to restore these properties in the future .... a complete waste of time and money??? I wonder if anyone on the city council could even build a doll house from scratch?? It takes a lot more time and money than you think....than anyone even realizes....it is amazing to me...the new people wanting to run for City Council resent even spending $350.00 on their own compaign signs to run for a positions that they are in charge of thousands of dollars worth of other peoples money and projects as with Marcia Cowen.
There is a great need of afforadable housing in the Ft Scott area....and we are loseing the houses right and left....
Hoping for a better future!!!
Well Well Another Joke in Fort Scott
I m proud to say I live next to a home owned by Marcia Cowen, I have great neighbors and the house looks great. Just another show of useless power come on Nick give me a break you know this is a joke kinda like the city board up there. you know the stout building is a bigger threat oh but wait if you take it down you might put in another parking lot. No you got to pick on this lady who gives affordable housing to people in this town you know what I think this is a joke and so are the people who think they are helping us. Other houses in this town are falling in and they let them stand with our kids walking near them,
Wake Up People of Fort Scott its time for change get these people out or better yet make them live like we have too
Maybe then they will start doing the right thing instead of just acting like it
Take care everyone
Mr X
It has been lees then a week and the house at 102 S. Hill is gone. After all the money spent on it at the request of Amanda Proffitt.
Let this be a lesson on investing in this city.
Who ever buys the precious falling down Stout Building will probably face the same problems as did Marsha Cowen. Buy it, put money into it and they will condemn it and tear it down as soon as Amy Boyd gets her money.
"Let this be a lesson on investing in this city."
I like this statement from the previous poster but let me take it in a different direction.
Let this be a lesson on investing in this city.....As an investor do your homework on a house before you buy it. If its condemned then contact the city about what inspections are needed to get it up to code. Don't purchase investment houses if you aren't going to fix them up. Don't wait on making repairs until the codes officer has to tell you to get something done. If you want to make a profit then do it right and provide quality affordable housing.
There are plenty of slum lords in this town that think they have a right to circumvent building codes in order to make a profit on those desperate to find affordable housing.
There is a reason a house sell for only a couple thousand dollars.....and thats because the house will take more money to fix up then it would be worth in the end. The life of many of these houses ended years ago with negligent owners to failed to properly maintain their home. Holes in the roof, water damage, foundation damage, insect infestation, and shoddy workmanship from prior repairs doom many of these homes to the point they are not worthy of anything but a bulldozer.
The difference between these little 2 bedroom/1 bath homes and the Stout Building is that the Stout Building still has value for a investor wanting to bring it up to code.
I sympathize for those that lose their homes because they can't afford to maintain their house. I don't sympathize for those that fail to maintain an investment property because they are wanting more profit or they just get in over their head.
I think I figured it out. This must be the Cities idea of a stimulus package. You know since we are spending money to demo a house that the city does not have to spend. Yeah that must be it, loose tax revenue AND spend money to demo this house. Lets see well there is one person this whole thing has helped, the person that won the bid to demo this house. Perhaps we should look into the connections between Ms. Proffitt and the company that demoed this house. No and I mean NO governmental body works that quickly to place equipment on site. I think like the earlier poster said, this is faster than Pizza Hut. Where is the bidding process that the city has to go through? Or did this just get awarded on the side?
Maybe Amanda's husband, brother, boyfriend, dad or friend run the demolition crew, someone she knows gets paid for the demolition, or maybe this is what she thinks she has to do to keep this job. She is just picking on poor people because she knows they cant get a lawyer, why dont she condemn some of those dangerous huge apartment buildings, I bet I could drive around and find plenty that were worse than the one she tore down. I guess if you go complain that a house is an eyesore and you know the right people than she will do it. I see houses around town without roofs and horrible foundation with people living in them, but I bet the rules are different then because they would have to find people housing. So how can the stout building be sold if they were given 60 days? You just pick and chose who to treat bad, This was probably an example that needed to be set, like its going to make everyone have money magically appear to get things fixed, all she did is make it to where no body will buy a house to fix up, make the housing market a little worse in this area, way to go FS. The stout building is too expensive to tear down and Amy is related to people at the court house so Marsha needs to sue for some type of descrimination.
And now we're making accusations of connections between the demo company and the codes office?
You've got to be kidding me. Johnny Walker has always been super quick and on demolition jobs he has been awarded as long as I have been on the commission, from back when nobody currently in the codes office had anything to do with codes.
One thing I will not miss about city politics is cowards throwing out wild accusations while hiding behind anonymous names on the internet.
One In An Opinion has been pretty much the only voice of reason in these entire comments. There's no conspiracy, folks. I appreciate anybody who put time and money into renovating homes in Fort Scott. At the same time, people have got to be careful they don't overextend themselves or their resources, as that can lead to buildings sitting in disrepair for a long time (nearly a year in this case), which puts the codes office, the Commission, and the neighbors of that property all in a difficult position. It's happened with a lot of investors in a lot of areas in Fort Scott, and I think it would be best to take renovation projects one at a time. We've dealt with this problem on the west side, on the east side, and (to detrimental effect) downtown, and while it sucks to have to make difficult decisions, the line has got to be drawn at some point.
Nick,
Do yourself a favor, drive through this town for once. And I don't mean just the main roads, drive down some of the side streets in this town and see the condition of possibly 30-40% of the houses in town. Everyone would need to be demoed following the councils litmus test of eligibility. Oh wait you don't have that, you pick and choose. So look at it from a citizens perspective and than decide why so many of us don't trust or believe in the shenanigans going on in City Hall. Oh and as far as you calling those that blog on here nameless cowards. Its a really good thing you are not running again, those nameless cowards that you speak of are the citizens of this fine community that made a terrible mistake in electing you and the other current members of the board.
Actually a lot of people who post on here are fine and dandy. It's the few who anonymously throw out accusations pulled out of their rear ends that I consider cowards.
Nick: You know who I am. I am the one who has contacted you about 20 times or more concerning the fact 759 S. Barbee was a dangerous situation and that they kept saying something would be done and wasn't. I did not hear you bring that up at the commission meeting. Why is that, Nick? Perhaps you are the coward? That house and the one torn down were brought up before the commission on the same night. How many times did I contact you about the same individual with the dangerous structure not mowing the vacant lots in our neighborhood and my attempts to get the Codes Office to enforce the codes (OK, so how was I know that was asking too much of you or the Codes Office). The last time I called the Codes Office to inquire about the Stout building and the date of condemnation, Amanda asked if I were going to "plaster it all over the internet" and when I asked if it weren't public information, she said I would have to come down to fill out paperwork which is fine but I did find it in the minutes - about 1 1/2 years ago so maybe her skills at record keeping are, well, it speaks for itself. If anyone here is a coward, it is not someone trying to defend a citizen that is being discriminated against but a city commission member who, if they believe the Code should be enforced, plays the same game - rich guy walks free.
I wasn't at the Commission meeting in question - I was on daycare duty that night while my wife helped moderate the area spelling be at her school.
There's nothing cowardly about defending anyone, but I think there is something cowardly about anonymously throwing accusations out that the codes office is somehow in cahoots or collusion with the contractors who get the demolition jobs, which you have not been a party to, and I thank you for that. And, as I put in my e-mail to you, I felt like you had a valid point, hence my offer to bring it up at the next meeting.
As for the "rich guy walks free", therein lies the problem. Few renovation developers qualify as rich, which leads to stretched resources, which leads to buildings sitting in wait for the developers to get the resources to complete the project.
Nick, there are numerous properties that could be justified to being torn down but only a select few actually make it to that point. Many people don't understand or come up with their own ideas why some houses get torn down while others are left to be an eyesore for the general public.
It is a sensitive game the city plays but there really isn't an alternative that wouldn't sky rocket the budget for demolition of dangerous structures.
I think the issue is showing the public that the system is fair and goes after the more severe properties first. Its a public relations nightmare that quite honestly the city is failing to address.
Whether you tear down only a few or if you go after all of them you will always have people who don't agree with your actions. The best bet is to find a middle ground somewhere and show the people a codes enforcement procedure that is both fair and enforced evenly.
Nick, its too bad I can't get you to at least address the complete lack of stop signs at intersections in this town. (but that is of a matter that is still being ignored by mostly everyone)
Shoot me an e-mail with some of the intersections you are concerned about and I'll see what I can do.
No email needed Nick. I'd like them all fixed.
Nick: The owner of the property who isn't a "rich" guy has 29 lower priced properties (about 1/2 in vacant lots it appears - a lot to mow) and this is listed under a corporation name. I never see many vacant lots for sale in town??? All the places being turned in and torn down but no lots for sale??? Anyway, tearing down 102 S. Hill clearly demonstrates the discrimination by the Codes Office and the fact that I contacted both the City Manager and City Commission many times about the problem - you all were on board with this. You are guilty as charged and no talking around it is really worth your time as no one here is stupid.
Searching on property owned by Marcia Cowen, there is a house owned by Mark McKinny on the south side of Marcia Cowen's property 511 Osbun.
This house needs repairs to the porches and painted.Yet people can currently live in it. Not to mention his neglected building on the NE corner of 6th and Main, which had a fire and has been neglected for years....It appears Mr. Mckinny is not concerned, and does he have to be concerned??? No!!! .At 505 Couch the people living there are making the property look like a city dump. What are the codes people doing about these slum tennants. Go north on National just north of Oak. There is a building on the corner that has had no roof on it for a few years.There is debris in itand a open door where people or children can enter. I believe a Jim Addams one of Ft Scott commissioners owns this property. Why hasnt he had to do something about it?? Is he worried or concerned...again...No!!!! How many structures were on the demolition list before Marcia Cowen.
There are alot of people that think this smells fishy. The list could go on and on about houses, buildings and the owners.There is an election coming up for city officials. People in Ft. Scott KS, need to get some back bone and elect people that are going to stand for what is right.The laws should be for everyone, not for how much money you have or fancy house you live in. The law is the law, rules are rules....People of Ft. Scott.....is your house and properties safe from the chopping block???? Does Amanda Proffitt get under thse stuctures in the attics, to see what is safe and what isnt??? people would like to know?? People are wondering about that saying" rub my back and I'll rub yours" Is Amanda Proffit a licinsed structual engineer? then again...is Amanda being used as a pawn, a puppett, for our city comminsioners? as an example...Dick Hedges, city commissioner, Robert Farmer City Attorney...who else?
Mr. Prue...gets our Vote!!
Our current city officials need to worry about our city...instead of the country club!!!
Oh yes...and by the way!!!!
Mr. Michael Bryant and Mr. Jim Shoemaker...you claimed that the historical building at 102 S. Hill....that you helped to destroy....was bothering your view!!! How do you like the view NOW????
If the view of this historical building was bothering you.....the whole town must be bothering you too!!!! :( :(
his week at the city commission meeting Nick Graham (thanks again Nick for trying to do the right thing, finally) brought up at the property at 759 S. Barbee. He had pictures and brought up a very foreign concept to Fort Scott, that of individuals being held to the same standard. Other Commissioners looking confused, having forgotten that I contacted them at least every month about the problem, started mumbling things: Ms. Wood said that she wasn't going to do Amanda's (Code officer) job and didn't really look at the pictures while others said they would rather see a house fixed up rather than torn down. What a difference from two weeks ago when they attacked Marcia Cowan and three days later leveled one of her properties to the ground. The City Manager assured them that (after 9 months of never being touched and being truly dangerous) it would be taken care of just as he assured me it would be completed months ago. What Ms. Wood didn't realize is that if the City Manager is not doing his job which includes supervising and making sure those under him are doing their job that it is the responsibility of the City Commission to take care of that problem. This situation has been a shining example of the reality of life in Fort Scott.
This is in regards to "eyes open" 3/12/09
You stated that commissioner Adams admitted he had a building that was in poor condition. Also you stated the city said it didn't have sufficient funds to bid out buildings for demolition.So the city picks out buildings that the owners are trying to fix. They need to pool there money and focus on these buildings that are owned by commissioners, Jim Addams , the McKinneys and a few others....also "eyes open" at a meeting if you were there.....on 1/06/09 that Marcia Cowen also attended. The board and Amanda Proffitt gave Ms. Cowen 90 days..that would put April the 90 days. Her Hill house was torn down in less than 90 days..to me the people on the board..... as the American Indian would say " you speak with a forked tongue" sounds like some white men haven't changed..Marcia Cowen needs to hire an attorney...but not from this town. She needs to sue you people and you know who you are!!! Also the City Attorney...you need to get some platform shoes if you think you are so big!!!
"eyes open",and some of the people of Ft. Scott see the picture too.The governor of Kansas should get a letter and pictures of Marcia Cowens case and let him know how this town runs things!!!!!
We need to get rid of the codes officer as she uses her position to railroad people so they loose there homes she will try to go inside your home so she can call it unsafe and you do not have to let the codes officer inside unless you are doing work that needs inspected.