About This Page
The Multimedia Page is a collection of slide shows and videos that have appeared in the South Portlander since 2007. Please note the date at the end of the entry to see when it was first published. Individual photos may be available for reprint. Please contact the South Portlander for details.
Editor's ChoiceVideosSlide Shows |
Video: Armory Hearing Attracts Full House
The South Portland City Council got an earful of warnings and complaints Monday night, when the city held its first-ever public hearing on the vacant armory, which was purchased in 2006.
CommentsBy Leah Muliero on 2008 10 28 I would like to correct the reporting from last night’s public forum regarding the Armory. The Knightville Mill Creek Neighborhood Association does not support a renovation to the building at the cost proposed. It was my professional opinion that it would take upwards of 5 million dollars to renovate that building. We think instead, the building should be torn down and a portion of the lot should go to the police/fire department to expand, perhaps build a new (sustainable) Emergency Operations Center. The remaining portion of the site should be sold. We do not think the Armory is worth saving- easily the City could build an attractive EOC with garage for storage on the back cheaper than renovating or repairing that building. I just want to be clear we do not support the renovation- like many citizens at the forum, we think the Armory is an economic issue the city council needs to deal with and not one the citizens of South Portland should pay for, any longer. By Linda on 2008 10 28 From Linda Hersey:
“From Dick Olson’s testimony (shown above) that the purchase was a “dumb” decision to architect Leah Muliero’s warning that the building will be a “money pit,” most residents urged the city not to try to re-develop the World War II-era warehouse as a future City Hall.” Your comments above, however, make it much clearer about your group’s view that the building should be torn down. According to my meeting notes, you said a “portion” of the site should go to police and fire for a “storehouse.” I had assumed you meant the current arrangement for vehicle storage in the warehouse portion of the building. Thank you for the clarification. |