Yesterday Oshkosh's historic Coles Bashford House met the wrecking ball, the victim of being located in a city where the municipal government can waste money on floating docks and golden commodes, but can't find a fucking dime to rescue a major part of the city's heritage. Last year the Wisconsin Trust for Historic Preservation placed the Coles Bashford House on its 10 most endangered properties list, but a private fundraising drive to save the building came up short.Coles Bashford was the first Republican governor of Wisconsin, and he came to office after being declared victor in an election rife with fraud. Bashford himself was later implicated in a bribery scandal, forcing him to leave office and the state after one term.
Debbie Laffin of Oshkosh wrote a letter to the Oshkosh Northwestern that sums it all up nicely:
Oh, what a great idea to burn and demolish the Coles Bashford House, a beautiful landmark and historic site for the entire state of Wisconsin. What will go in its place? A Sam's Club? Maybe an adult toy store, or something we really need, a tavern.
Yeah, let's go ahead and destroy our history and then we can moan about it for years like we do the Athearn Hotel.
Think about it and we are so worried about a little angel statue, while this slips through the crack.
17 comments:
Tony,
You said it perfectly. It is a huge mistake to tear down a 151 year old part of Oshkosh history. It sure is right about the spending in this city. They can buy all these 'extras' and cater to the wealthy (floating docks) but when it comes to saving a significant piece of history (state history I might add) they don't find that as a priority. It is a shame. I like how you put it, the obscenity was appropriate in this case.
Have a great Friday.
K Monte
Ah, so this time the use of the "F" word makes the grade on the Monte Obscenity Meter (MOM). ;-)
Thanks Kent. You have a great Friday too.
Keep pandering Kent, had public funding of saving this historic structure come in front of any council you were a member out of it I give it pretty good odds that you would have called this a "want" catering to a "special interest group" rather than a "need".
I'm as embarrassed as anyone that we let this slip through the cracks (Card carrying National Trust for Historic Preservation member, former architectural history student and donor to the Coles Bashford House effort) but Tony and Kent are making far too simplistic an analysis of this issue. The real heat should be on the EB Davis Board of Directors- historic preservation has to start at the grass roots and is only successful when it does so. They obviously didn't have enough respect for the history of the property or they would have found a different way to utilize it. Blame for this (although I have found Tony and Kent are capable of blaming the city for damn near anything) should be shared by all of us- Oshkosh has a MISERABLE preservation record and it is because we do not have a strong grassroots movement of those who appreciate our architectural heritage. The "Our Town" promotion (which I reccommend Mr. Monte program the coordinates for the downtown into his GPS and see if he can find his way in town for) should hopefully awaken many to the great level of wonderful architecture we have, but until then we will continue to lose historic structures like this. The city of Oshkosh, like many older cities who appreciate their heritage, should pass a "demolition moratorium" for any property over 100 years old and allow further study of options relating to these properties. We should be outraged, but I think Tony and Kent are leading us down a path of misdirected anger.
That said, what is an even greater shame is for some to use this unfortunate event as a way to make political hay, especially considering I highly doubt either Mr. Monte or Palmeri took any notice of the Coles Bashford House, nor did they contribut to it's defense fund, while it was standing. But give either an opportunity to get up on a soapbox and they are scrambling over who gets to get up first.
I may be taking an unfavorable position here, but why is this such a travesty? It sounds like the existing house is very much different from the historic monument it represents, and the current owners are unable to afford the necessary repairs to keep the building inhabitable.
Call me cold-hearted with respect to history, but I don’t think saving this building is worth the money. It is an unfortunate fact of life that buildings get old, deteriorate, and (unless ridiculous amounts of money are spent) fall apart. I just don’t think it’s worth the seemingly large amount of money to rescue. To me, there isn’t much difference between complaining about wasteful government spending in one breath, then asking government to pay a large sum of taxpayer money so some of us can admire a building that housed the first Republican (even though it doesn’t look anything like it did when he lived there) as we drive by.
If this building was to be saved, the help needed to come from the citizens who feel it is an important building to keep. That effort, however, came up "woefully short."
Actually, I think there was a bit of the angel in the destruction of the house.
The board announced that it would be used to house an anti-abortion group if money was raised for renovation.
They made it into a political debate. Even if I wanted to save the house, why would I want to see my donation for the house end up supporting a group I disagree with?
No way! Did Tony and Kent just go off on a 'blame the city' rant without knowing all of the information? If you search Tony's website, Tony's Blog or Kent's Blog you wil not find a menation of the word Bashford anywhere before today. Where were they during the fundraising? Why didn't they use their soapboxes to raise money for the anti-abortion clinic that would have saved the house. Or, are they just looking for a way to try to pin another gotcha on the city? And finally, will they admit that they have no idea what they are talking about?
I know I said I wouldn't but I have to ask, what the hell is an 'anti abortion clinic'?
What a way to spin a home for un-wed mothers. That is the correct name for it.
K Monte
P.S. I donated.
Well, I object. Strongly. People crawled up my backside - got all holier than thou when I blew up and swore WITHOUT using the F-word, actually (close as I recall, but not the actual word)And let us also recall that I did so after hving repeatedly been personally attacked in a base way which included being accused of participating on this blog only because I "was having an affair with Tony" which, if you are a married person with adult children who READ this blog, and are old enoough to catch the nuances, gets even less amusing.
If that happens again, I probably will not swear since the swearing gets fed back to me and gets to be used by insensitive people as "proof" that I have no credibility, etc. A double whammy.
Kent, judging from the phrasing of your comment, you could be just referring to the Johnny Cash image, but I kind of doubt it.
Or is it okay because Tony is a guy?
So - not so okay to blow up about your own and family's rep, but okay to get passionate about an historic monument?
Interesting value system.
Interesting value system he has for sure.
Jody,
I like Johnny Cash. He was a great artist.
As for the obscenity, I have heard and used worse. Actually several times recently. I am not offended nor I doubt any others that read this material. I would think that the loss of a great portion of our history would allow some lattitude for this. I even used an obscenity in my latest post. I guess I am destined for the place I referred to eh?
Your gender has never mattered to me. I don't care what language you would like to use. You have not written anything that I haven't heard come out of a womans mouth before. I was in the Army, remember? I don't remember making any objections and I even went back to one of the posts in question to verify that. Cheryl made remarks, but I didn't. If you would like to swear, be my guest. I will say that it is not my site to give permission. That is up to Tony.
If I offended, I apologize but do not regret nor take back anything I said.
Have a nice evening to all.
K Monte
Mr. Monte, exactly what remarks are you attributing to me? Let's be very clear about something: This is the first time I have commented on this story.
I would caution you to not give attribution - good, bad or indifferent - to me unless I have signed my name to something.
Yeah, Monte. We all know Cheryl Hentz signs her name to EVERYTHING she posts. ;) It isn't her fault she can't read the comments to know you and Jody weren't talking about this thread but one where Jody was accused of sleeping with Tony. Some investigative reporter. Oops, did I write that out in the open???
Cheryl,
Sorry to drag you into this but I wasn't referring to anything on this thread but one that happened in January. Jody had mentioned getting scolded for vulgarity and I went back to see where. You can see the thread here.
I am aware that it occurred several months ago, but you did sign your name and I didn't think that it would matter if it was mentioned.
In addition to you there were several anonymous postings but I consider those irrelevant.
Have a great day. Looks like the weather is going to be great.
K Monte
Mr. Monte, thank you for the explanation. It is too bad it wasn't made more clear in the beginning. After all, not everyone recalls or may even be aware of that other story and thread from earlier this year.
To the anonymous who posted just two minutes before Mr. Monte, I would remind you as I just did Mr. Monte, not everyone sees every story posted on blog sites. In addition there are always new people joining the discussions or visiting sites. You can't assume people have been here forever or that, if they have, they check out every single story posted. I would think most people could understand that.
Other than that, your ridiculous comments, attempts at humor and swipes at my professional work smack of jealousy and speak for themselves.
Cheryl,
If one was as adept at her profession as you are obviously proud to be, one would know what one has signed their name to instead of immediately jumping to unwarranted conclusions. Reading this thread, I have sensed no malace from Mr Monte towards you. However, your initial post was dripping with accusatory disdain. Since the posts in question were between Jody and Mr. Monte, I don't think what others understand or don't is relative. If one wanted a clearer understanding, one could simple go to the archives for the thread Jody referred to.
I hope your comments do not insinuate readers of this blog are so ignorant as to not be able to figure that out.
As an aside, I thought anonymous 10:00 was just being playful (I could be wrong). However, since they are merely anonymous, why get you typewriter ribbon in a twist? Cheryl, you know who you are. You are a public figure, be tougher skinned than that or some might question your integrity and abilities. Please do not read that as a criticism, Cheryl. It was meant as friendly advice only.
Can we now get back to the topic of this thread? While the Bashford House was historical and I could have cried about its loss, I think Jayce is right. I do recall ONW articles about the house needing A LOT of work to make it habitable. However, I also recal comments about one proposed use (Home for unwed mothers) being shot down as a bad example for the children at the daycare center.
I also wonder, if this house was so important to the state and the republican party (as the home of the first republican governor), why did neither intervene?
New Voice,
Just wanted to respond briefly to your "friendly advice." I know exactly what I have signed my name to and what I haven't. And, like others, I have been accused of making anonymous comments when I haven't. Hence my comment posted to Mr. Monte. His remarks weren't clear and I inquired as to what he was talking about. I jumped to no conclusions; if I had I would not have asked him what he was talking about.
If something is going to be just between two people and not open for comment or questions from others, those "desires" might be better served by the specific parties exchanging private emails (when there is the ability to do so and in the case of Jody and Mr. Monte, that ability certainly exists).
Finally you clearly have a different interpretation of playfulness than others. And being tough-skinned is one thing; having one's professional work and ability questioned and attacked everytime someone sees an opportunity to do so is quite another. Perhaps if the shoe was on the other foot, others might understand that.
So thanks for your advice. You'll forgive me if I reject it - at least until such time as someone can offer proof of something I've written professionally that is in error.
Have a pleasant day.
What happened here?
Post a Comment