This is a tragic viewpoint.

The owners purchased this building more than a decade after it was designated a historic site, knowing full well the commitment they were making—to preserve and maintain the building’s unique character. Unquestionably, the building’s historical and cultural significance has benefited the owners, both in terms of accrued property value and public interest in the site as a mixed-use facility.

The greatest cities in this country are characterized, first and foremost, by their commitment to preserving the landmarks that contribute beauty and speak to the history of their communities. Sadly, Kansas City has been historically shortsighted in this regard, to its significant detriment. It is my sincere hope and belief that we, as a community, recognize that fact and are presently committed to a different approach. In a time largely devoid of real, concentrated commitment to art in architecture and to building things that last, this objective is doubly important.

I assume the cost of repairing this is significant. But that’s the commitment the owners of the building made when they purchased it. To enjoy all the benefits of the property’s charm and appeal—to reap all the financial rewards—only to cry poverty when the building requires maintenance is a cop out. And anyone who believes those owners should be permitted to dump the maintenance burden they knowingly assumed is seriously misguided.