Please answer this question

Dear editor:

I noted, with more than a passing interest, the front-page article in the Sunday Dec. 17, edition of The Sentinel-Record with the headline “Roof Overhang Causes Concern for Courthouse.”

As you will recall, in our last episode of the intrepid adventures of our city government, the new owner of the Arlington Hotel, who was threatened with closure because of an inspection by a fireman, said the building was a hazard. (No actual falling material has been noted in the newspaper, just a threat that it might occur during a freeze-thaw cycle this winter).

For how many years has the city government given a “wink-wink” and “nudgenudge” to the prior owners of downtown structures and let code enforcement go lax? Then, suddenly, based on a fireman’s inspection (not an architect or engineer), the building was deemed a hazard, and threatened with closure. Kids, can you say “shakedown?”

It took an actual study by architects and engineers to refute the city’s condemnation, saying mediation actions would protect the public from potential falling debris until repairs were made permanent.

Now comes the question. If the courthouse has actual falling parts of the eaves, and the news article said some fell through the roof and into the county clerk’s office, how come the city doesn’t send out a fireman and threaten to close the courthouse within a short time frame?

I applaud the new Arlington owner and hope he can prevail against the pushback from the city, and restore a grand old hotel.