[Masthead] Partly Cloudy ~ 59°F  
High: 63°F ~ Low: 47°F
Sunday, May 1, 2016

Past its prime: 127-year-old home on Eastwood Street slated to be razed

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

A 19th-century home on Eastwood Street is slated to be demolished after it fell into disrepair.
(Geoff Rands/Democrat-News)
Behind several trees on the 700 block of East Eastwood Street sits a 127-year-old house; its yellow paint chipping, the roof over its back porch filled with holes larger than a human foot, its brick chimney crumbling, its rooms empty of human inhabitants and its overall state of repair so poor that the Marshall City Council has decided to demolish it.

The building in question is the old home of former Marshallite and former Saline County judge Lawrence McClure, who has not resided in the home, nor has anyone else, in at least five years, say various sources. McClure no longer lives in Saline County.

The building was determined to be a hazard, said Don Stouffer, legal counsel to the city council, because it was not closed against intrusion, it was not watertight and the maintenance of the grounds was not in line with city requirements.

Stouffer said the city gave McClure ample time to bring the home up to code or sell it, and McClure did neither.

Between 16 and 20 separate public hearings were held during this time, Stouffer estimated.

"We have never spent this much time on a single piece of property," Stouffer said, adding that one reason so much time was spent on this property was due to its status as one of the oldest homes in Marshall.

When Marshall officials put out requests for preliminary bids, they requested bids for two jobs: repairing the building and demolishing it.

City Inspector Mike Morgan said the price quoted for repair of the house's roof and removal of the deck off of the building's rear was $59,000, well over the bid for demolition and removal of the house. That caused the job to be awarded to Thompson Construction at the Marshall City Council meeting Monday evening, July 6. This company's bid of $9,941.30 was almost half of the next-lowest bid for demolition and removal.

"This has not been a closed or a recent or a quick decision," said Stouffer.

The home's basement, which McClure had built in 1988, will be filled with concrete, said Morgan.

"When they're done with this, (the lot) will be in a mowable condition," he said.

The value of this basement was estimated by Marshall Municipal Utilities Board of Public Works President Chuck Hird to be at least $30,000.

Speaking as a private individual, Stouffer said, "That home is one of the oldest in town. But should the city pay taxpayer funds to repair that property?"

"I think it's sad that we are so quick to tear down our past," said one anonymous neighborhood resident.

"I like old homes, and I think, I don't want it torn down, necessarily, but I also don't like to see it (deteriorate so badly)," said another neighborhood resident who wished to remain unnamed.

The home is the only one in Saline County that was built in the "Tuscan Villa" Italianate style, according to "Marshall, Missouri 1839 - 1989: 150 Years of Progress."

Thomas C. Rainey had Edgar R. Page build the home for him in 1882. Page also had a hand in the construction of the Saline County Courthouse. Rainey was the author of "Along the Old Trail" and a prominent businessman in Arrow Rock, Marshall and Kansas City.

Contact Geoff Rands at marshallreporter@socket.net

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 Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

How many dollars from Eastwood residents have helped preserve Arrow Rock?

-- Posted by farmer'sgranddaughter on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, at 1:51 PM

upsedaisy: $150,000 wouldn't have touched what was needed for this house to be saved. Please see our story today, which details how this house met its end.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Fri, Jul 17, 2009, at 1:40 PM

It's over.

While no one with a spare $150,000 stepped up to the plate, I had hoped that with spreading the picture and history of this landmark home there would perhaps have been a fund started to provide the most urgent need of a roof, and plywood to cover the windows and doors. The audience for MDN is world-wide. A dollar contribution from many can match the mythical money in the mattress in fairly short order.

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 8:34 PM

We will be running a story about this house and its owner, and how the house met its untimely fate, in tomorrow's edition.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 2:17 PM

It was not the economy that entered this wonderful structure into a period of neglect and abandonment. I have heard that once again, this building is not in that bad of condition. The owner got himself into legal and financial trouble. That is really sad, especially since he was an officer of the court system. If he was in legal trouble, he should have sold it. Some of those pillars of our community from the past are the same people who fought against an ordinance that would have protected homes like this from destruction. Most people didn't understand! They were too afraid that their rights were going to be violated. Thank goodness, they have moved on! If our city government wanted to do something constructive about this situation they would. However Marshall for many years has spelled the word "progress" the same as "demolition".

-- Posted by farmer'sgranddaughter on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 11:41 AM

Thanks for the reality check/update oneofmany. I have been back, in fact fairly recently, but just drove out Eastwood, preoccupied with ongoing conversation within the auto. Thankfully most of the houses look pretty good No doubt you are correct. Time marchs on but people don't.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 10:01 AM

Oklahoma Reader, I have to say I chuckled at some of your comments. First of all, I don't have any idea how old you are, but a lot of the "Marshall aristocracy" are residing at Ridge Park cemetery. If they had children, most of them did not stay in Marshall. In fact, I can think only one Eastwood home that is owned by the families that lived there when I was a child, and it's empty. Being a lifelong Saline Countian, the thought of Marshall having any aristocracy cracks me up. Many people who were born since you've left would have no idea to whom you're referring. Eastwood is not the center of wealth that it was 40-50 years ago. If you would like to get a flavor for how Marshall has changed, I would suggest looking through a current phonebook at the names you remember living on Eastwood. I think you'll find those people either have moved to other parts of town or are long gone. Also, I think you may have forgotten that many of the homes on Eastwood are very modest. (I once lived in one of them.) I would say there are maybe five houses I would consider mansions. Three of them are currently empty and on the market. Marshall has not been immune from the housing problems that face the nation. That said, I do treasure older homes, but I certainly don't have $150,000 dollars to donate to this cause. Do you? I do have a hammer, but it might be dangerous for me to use it at my age. Everyone who has seen this house is sick about losing it. You might want to make the trip up to check it out. I guess we could pray for a bail-out...stranger things have happened.

-- Posted by oneofmany on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 1:05 AM

Sorry for the double posting. I doubt anything I have ever written is worthy of a second posting, but the situation of this old house is worthy of a second look. (How is that for finessing a stupid mistake.) ;)

What does the local Historical Society have to say about this situation? They used to have a web site. I suppose they are now defunct, or they certainly would be attempting to rescue this treasure.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 12:40 AM

Thanks oneofmany, you are correct, it has been many years since I lived in Marshall, forty four to be exact. It saddens me that the Marshall economy has gotten so bad over the years that even the people who live in the magnificent homes on East Eastwood no longer have a spare dime.

Time was when the occupiers of those homes were bank owners, land owners with huge amounts of rich bottom land, Medical Doctors who had invested well, and others who lived well off long established family fortunes.

I suppose that I should have recognized that a generation or two has moved on since I was there, and that apparently the later generations did not have the financial acumen of their elders.

I also suppose that I should feel compassion for all those elderly mansion dwellers hanging on by the skin of their teeth as time, and fortune passes them by. How could they have fallen so far?

It is too darn bad though that instead of destroying this one of a kind beauty that it couldn't be sold dirt cheap, or even given to one of those young up and comer families that you mentioned. Sweat equity, and one hundred and fifty thousand dollars could probably turn it around. The city would not be out one dime. That would be a win win situation if there ever was one.

If that can not be done because of city statutes, maybe it is time that the council revisit the pertinent statutes to consider modification.

I would hate to see this turn into a situation wherein all those of the fallen aristocracy who are clinging in despair to their fine old homes, stand in the street with tears streaming from their rheumy old eyes, as the wrecking ball guided by the hands of false progress rolls down the street with the effect of an F5 tornado.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Jul 16, 2009, at 12:30 AM

More food for thought. Front page article in The Wall Street Journal, July 14, titled: "Keeping up Appearances: London turns eye to Empty Mansions." Apparently. there is a "compulsory purchase Law" covering properties which have taxes paid by absentee owners, but are allowed to sit empty and unmaintained. It's a tool of last resort. Recommend reading. Available on line as well as paper copy.

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, at 8:37 PM

It seems to me that if a city government can get block grants to tear down old structures, a city government can also get block grants to preserve old structures instead of always tearing one down.Many communities such as St Joseph have local not state or federal grants and tax credit programs. The city government actually supports this effort.

Since when can someone enter a privately owned vacant property to determine the condition and future of that property? I believe that it has happened more than once in this town. As for filling in the basement with concrete - I wonder if that idea wasn't encouraged by a neighbor who wants the property for himself. Usually those holes are filled in with dirt! If we had allowed the historical ordinance about twelve years ago or one similar that would have only protected status quo at that time, we would still have the house on Arrow just east of Redman, we would still have the old chamber building, we would still have the beautiful house on North Street that was torn down at a blink if an eye so that the owner could sell the woodwork. All that house needed was honest TLC. The roof didn't even leak and it was probably designed by George Barber, a well known Knoxville architect. It is really sad when your city officials do not appreciate our natural resources and historic qualities! People visiting from out of town sure do! If this is called PROGRESS, then someone did not pay attention in history classes! Whom ever is pushing this agenda is not a very community minded individual. What historical treasure is next? Marshall just becomes more and more a sad

place to live!

-- Posted by farmer'sgranddaughter on Wed, Jul 15, 2009, at 1:31 PM

Oklahoma Reader, I'm assuming you have not lived in Marshall for quite some time. While Eastwood does have a few affluent homeowners, I would say, there are many people who are retired and on fixed incomes who spend their limited resources to maintain their own old homes. Some homeowners are young families that certainly don't have the money to contribute to restoring the McClure house. I'm sure, many Eastwood residents are heartsick about the fact that this residence has been in disrepair for MANY years. People who live in one hundred year old houses know it is a labor of love. I know, because I lived on Eastwood in the 70's when Mr. McClure started building the garage on the property. Some neighbors were excited that it was going to architecturally fit with the house. It is still, however, incomplete. I am saddened by the destruction of this property as well. I do, however, thank the city for taking the necessary steps to remedy a problem that has been longstanding. If I win the lottery, I'll be glad to save this beautiful house.

-- Posted by oneofmany on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 11:28 PM

Elton 88: I am quite aware that not everyone on Eastwood is rich. However you can not deny that there are a lot of people with a lot of money that reside there.

If it is stereotyping to call people that live on the street that has home, for home, block after block, the largest and most expensive to replace homes in all of Marshall rich, so be it.

It is a street of beautiful homes, large, and small. I just hate to see it marred by the unnecessary destruction of a rare architectual treasure. There are several ways that it can be saved, and several ways that the justifiably proud home owners in the hood can participate.

If it is torn down which of the old beauties will be next? What homeowner will suffer the misfortunes of age, and turned economic tides, capped by the ignominy of knowing their home will be destroyed?

The pending destruction of the old house sets a bad precedent. One that in time will be recognized as a mistake. I will be dead by then so I am delivering my "I told you so" in advance.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 10:47 PM


Webster's definition of elderly: Somewhat old; past middle age; approaching old age.

Age, of course, has many factors: e.g. Physical and mental health.

As the Brits put it, we're all on the slippery side of the slope.

On July 7, "Patron" worried that all the notices might not have been received by McClure. Something to be concerned about. Within the past month it was national news that a man on Long Island put on a wig and dress and collected money paid to his mother, who had died sometime ago.

Just watched a show on restoration of the Acropolis. Sure hope Marshall's one example, of italianate architecture can be saved.

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 8:35 PM

upsedaisy: The owner of this house was born in 1948 - not young, but not quite in the category of "elderly," IMHO.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 3:54 PM

Oklahoma Reader has suggested that someone WANTS the lot cleared for some purpose. If so, why not offer the house to someone who will move it? Haulin' House, on HGTV just this week had an episode about a 90 year old home that was moved in Cole Camp, MO by the Howard house moving crew.

The owner of this home is a. elderly, b. did an Alford plea, c. repaid the funds he supposedly misused. d.served a stint in the slammer, e. no longer has a law license.

Doubt he has too much interest in living in Marshall.

So think about the impact on Marshall. Earlier in the spring, tv news showed foreclosed homes on the West Coast being emptied of flat screen tvs, new clothes, furniture and appliances. The almighty banks were paying companies to go in and empty the homes. Millions of dollars in manufactured goods were sent to the landfills. It is wasteful to send a good house to the landfill.

In some communities foreclosed or abandoned homes are being purchased by Habitat for Humanity .

Before the wrecking ball hoves into sight, think about the solutions offered in this forum.

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 3:35 PM

Just wanted to mention to Oklahoma Reader, not everyone on Eastwood has money stuffed in their mattresses. Although I have heard that assumption before, it is just as irritating and stereotypical as it was the first time.

-- Posted by Elton88 on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 11:06 AM

Why doesn't the City of Marshall sell the house to someone for $1.00? In Kansas City, Mo., the City sells older houses to people for $1.00 and gives that person a year to fix it up and everybody wins! They have drawings to see who gets the house. There's not much left of Slater because the City always tears all old buildings down without trying to sell them to be fixed up. The ones they sell are houses not worth fixing up instead of the old historic ones. On Main Street in Slater, almost all of the older buildings are gone and NEW ones built. This has ruined the looks of Slater. I remember when they tore down the old Chamber of Commerce building in Marshall and I almost cried. The tearing down of the old Bank on the Square made me half sick. WHEN WILL IT STOP?

-- Posted by mosthonest1 on Tue, Jul 14, 2009, at 2:42 AM

I've been thinking about this for some time, so I think I'll just go ahead, and say it.

There is a lot of money stuffed in the mattresses along Eastwood Street. It would take only a little from each of the moneyed neighbors to "this old house" to put it right again, and preserve the integrity of what has historically been "the best street in Marshall".

Or they can continue their quiescense, reacting no differently than poor neighbors in a declining neighborhood, with the same result, a concrete slab making the statement we don't give a ****.

In a way, East Eastwood is the successful smile presented to visitors passing through our fair city. That smile will be missing a front tooth, an unneccessary ugly gap, should the property not be restored. Oh I know, somebody will buy the lot, and put a McMansion on it. Not the same, that big smile will then have, so to speak, a gold tooth with a diamond in it. That will not further the image that Eastwood projects. For all I know someone with influence is already pulling strings to get their hands on the property, and do just that.

It would really be nice to see the affluent neighborhood put its money where its mouth is, and assure preservation. Whatever transpires will reveal a lot about the current mood, status,and significance of the neighborhood.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Mon, Jul 13, 2009, at 11:12 PM

Construction: I don't have answers to specific questions you pose, but I think a story we did on the homeowner two years or so ago will enlighten you as to the dimensions of the problem.


The story here does mention the many hearings that were held, and it's clear the homeowner is well aware of the situation.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, at 6:45 PM

Eric Crump/Editor: Please give the community some answer on the 127 year old house. Is there a way to save the house? Was there more than one roof estimate on the house? Can the home be sold as is? What in the right information? Who says the house to be torn down, City? County? Has the owners tried to work out an agreement?/ Has the Marshall Democrat talked with the home owners?

So Mr Eric Crump/ Editor... Give us some answers!!!! This seems to be the big topic of Marshall Conversation.. Let the Commmunity know What is the options? What is Legal? Why cant the banks buy it? Tell us these answers//

-- Posted by Construction on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, at 4:37 PM

Yes, I realized that the city has no right to sell private property AFTER I had posted (and there's no way to edit once it's up)...but I still feel that demolition may be a bit premature. Perhaps the city could place one of those net safety fences on the property boundary to discourage trespassing. Afterall, it sounds like most of the problems with the property are safety issues. No one currently lives in the house or on the property, and therefore nobody else really has any business entering the property. Does the idea of "public safety" really apply to private, unoccupied property?

-- Posted by imaloony on Sun, Jul 12, 2009, at 8:55 AM

Where is everyone getting the idea that the city can just sell private property? Abandoned or not, it's still private property. IF the property taxes are NOT being paid, the county, not the city, would be able to put a lien the proptery and eventually confiscate the property for non payment.

All the city can do at this point is cite the property owner for failure to follow city ordinances. Which the city has done. The city has deemed the property to be a publci hazard since the property owner has not secured the abandoned building. Now the city has the right to demolish or fix the building and charge the property owner for the expense. The same way the city can come and mow your yard if you won't and charge you for it. If the property owner doesn't reimburse the city for the expense, the city then can put a lien on the property and eventually confiscated it for non payment. In the meantime, if the city pays almost $60,000 to fix the roof and porch, the rest of the house still sits empty and deteriorating. Who is going to pay $60,000 several years from now, if or even when the city could finally aquire the property, for an old house that would need a lot of work. Fixing it now at that price would just cost the city, meaning taxpayers, $50,000.

-- Posted by Reader101 on Sat, Jul 11, 2009, at 12:54 PM

They are filling the basement in with concrete??? What's wrong with good 'ole dirt? Seems like a silly waste of resources....

I agree that the city should try to sell the historic property before demolition. I think razing it should be a last resort.

-- Posted by imaloony on Sat, Jul 11, 2009, at 8:41 AM

AH yes the Democrat news is censoring unfavorable comments! Lovely most of this town knew this paper was a corupt now you have proved it, nothing I said was offensive to any one person or groupe nore were there cuss words. Thanks proving it

-- Posted by Selmac8 on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 11:46 PM

Will the town be the owner of this lot? Will the town be mowing?The value of the basement which was built in 1988 is $30,000 now? It sounds as if it will be taken off the town tax rolls.

Perhaps, a buyer could be found for this home by advertising in magazines focused on country style homes and small town living. Price it for $1.00 to $30,000 with a time line in which the new owners must complete repairs. New owners must establish an escrow account to pay for urgent repairs to maintain the home's integrity.

Despite it's decrepitude--it has so much grace. Must it be deep-sixed?

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 4:05 PM

This is part of the story on this property, too:


-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Fri, Jul 10, 2009, at 3:10 PM

It looks to me like there maybe a real story on this one.

The owner was, is, a man of resources. Are the property taxes paid? Is foreclosure a possibility? Is the owner incapacitated? Does he have a conservator?

There have been many good questions raised by posters. I am sure many of us would like the answers.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 2:13 PM

Hey! lets not just stop with this old house but continue tearing them down throughout the City. Take a look at some houses in disrepair all over the City. Take a drive on Lafayette, Jefferson, and English streets.

-- Posted by waterman7622 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 9:42 AM

Selmac8 you do have the option to move you know!

-- Posted by Gal66 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 6:58 AM

oldschool17 says it all. to many want to save things just because they are old. Marshall has enough old buildings with not real historical significance. Time to advance.

-- Posted by ghostwriter1978 on Thu, Jul 9, 2009, at 6:52 AM

I hate the see the house torn down. When was these estimated on the roofing and demolation made aware to the public? How many other estimates was taken into consideration.. $59,000 seems like a WHole lot of money for a roof... WOW>. have not seen one like that. I don't know much about the Historical Society terms.. I wish some other alternative for the home could have been... Maybe there is some grant money out there. The House could be used for something? When is the date of the demolation. IS it possible to stop the demolation. Maybe the city does not see any other alternative.. Maybe the city did not look far enough... It is just sad.. We do have a lot of homes in Marshall that should be tore down.. And with the ecomony like it is.. People dont have any extra money to fix on their home... I say as long as they are cleaned and things are keep up ... it should be okay... I know the 127-year-old house is a better looking home than some other homes.. There has to be an alternative? Did the City really seek out the best solution? What is things comming to when we can spend millions of an airport, 911 center and add new BIG Businesses to generate sale tax and make us spend money on increase sales taxes on our home, which Iknow it is state law. Well there ought to be law to keep this house to make a home or make some type of unit to generate income. Does MVC want to buy it.. Was it ever up for sale. I DOnt know.. But I would like to know what our town is all about because I and my family is in this town.

-- Posted by Construction on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 11:35 PM

So many people wanting to save this old home. As an individual with a degree in history I have a fondness for historical things, but this is not a historical thing, it's simply an old house. There is nothing historical about the home other than the age (which is why the historical society hasn't shown interest). I for one am glad they have taken this step. There are about 200 other homes around Marshall I would like to see this done with as well. It's time Marshall quit being an old beat up town, if you won't take care of your house than I am all for the city tearing it down. A concrete pad looks a lot better than a crumbling, decrepid house! Good call city, it's sad to see an old house come to this, but it's good to see something being done.

-- Posted by oldschool17 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 8:16 AM

WOW a piece of property the city council didn't sell to Con Agra! I am really shocked, I would have thought that Con Agra would have bought it to build a new freezer, Since they are not resticted on being in a industral Zone and can make our down town look like crap. Why not Eastwood?

-- Posted by Selmac8 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 1:24 AM

by the way, curious what neighbors and others on eastwood think of this? do they want it razed? would they rather have it restored and turned into a historical house? what about the neighbors on each side of the house? their thoughts?

all the city does is just send out notices and letters, then makes their decision, no personal touches, no phone calls, no real effort when it comes to this place. mr. stouffer and mr. mcclure are both lawyers and have crossed paths in the past ... i'm sure he can contact mcclure if he really wanted?

-- Posted by aikman8 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 12:17 AM

sounds to me like someone is being quick to action here without looking at all options and resources, just sending out many notices and having hearings. typical governement. i'd hate to see this just become a slab of concrete. the picture looks like the house is far from being condemned and razed ... how bout an inside tour, some kind of photos, demo news?

i bet with a little effort the demo news could contact mr. mcclure and get to the bottom of this.

what day is demolition scheduled? i think the city needs to sloooooooooooooow down on this one, especially now that they are just now bringing this to the public's attention.

-- Posted by aikman8 on Wed, Jul 8, 2009, at 12:07 AM

I will buy the home and fix it.. Help me to buy the historical house. Do not tear down another piece of Marshall History. Historical Society if you are out there.. Help save the House

-- Posted by Construction on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 10:09 PM

The McClure's have had plenty of time to take care of the house. The city has had to take action more than once to get them to either clean up the lot or repair the garage to keep it from falling in on itself. Over the last couple of months the McClures have been in the house getting things out from inside that they wanted to save. They knew this day was coming. It will still be up to the McClures to maintain the property according to city codes. If they wish to sell the property they still can, but it will be hard to find a buyer with tax liens against the property. Yes, it is sad to see a pre civil war home be destoryed. But the time has past on this house and the city is not to blame.

-- Posted by eastwoodfamily on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 9:54 PM

Mr. Rands,

Don Stouffer is NOT on City Council. I believe he is the City ATTORNEY.

-- Posted by Owl12345 on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 5:20 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
The story doesn't refer to Don Stouffer as a city councilman but as city councilOR, as in legal counsel to the city council. I think it should be spelled differently or worded differently, but Don is not the city attorney and if we use the word "attorney" it's too easy to confuse his role with that of the city attorney, Lin Alexander. I guess this term is also subject to confusion.

Have the McClures been paying the taxes on the property? If they have then they clearly still have an interest in it. If they haven't then why doesn't the city sell it on the steps of the courthouse like they do on foreclosed property?

And what will happen to the lot with a giant concrete slab? Who will own it? Who will maintain it? Too many unanswered questions here...I hope the city isn't over-reacting here.

-- Posted by momaster on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 5:09 PM

Has anyone tried to get it declared an historical building? The Missouri Historical Society declares it an historical building and then gives grant money to fix these old buildings for the Missouri Historical Society so they can be preserved and toured. It's such a shame when it's always "OUT WITH THE OLD AND IN WITH THE NEW!"

-- Posted by mosthonest1 on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 4:26 PM

I guess my question is, did Mr McClure respond at all to the notices from the city? Are they sure the notices reached him?

I understand that the allowed time for action has expired, so I just hope that all procedures were followed correctly. I am sure Mr. McClure still has many legal ties, and hope that there is no room for a lawsuit here.

-- Posted by patron on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 4:22 PM

so could any of the parts of the home be purchased such as the pillars or woodwork or anything else or when they demolish a home do they just tear all of it up?

-- Posted by workingmom on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 2:50 PM

Sad that the initiative could not be taken to save this historical home with the help of a historical preservation grant and use the property for a museum or something productive.

-- Posted by Maynard G Krebbs on Tue, Jul 7, 2009, at 1:00 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Related subjects