Clean Energy Springfield

As a general rule, I think that distressed properties ought to be rehabilitated rather than demolished. I think it's easier to reinvest in rehab than it is to get funding for new construction. I think that older buildings are assets that ought to be cherished when there isn't something immediately in the offing.

Which means that I'm distressed that most people in Springfield default to thinking that these properties ought to be demo'd. And that means that I'm doubly upset that there are apparently problems with the city's rehab program.

I think this is a good starting point for finding out about the problems, and I hope that Chris Wetterich is able to follow up on this article, which is mostly he-said, she-said stuff, and dig into what the program has accomplished and how widespread the problems are. What kind of tracking and reporting of its spending and successes does the city do?

Not hollowing out the core of Springfield is an important element to growing smart--good neighborhoods draw investment, which will otherwise continue to concentrate in the far west side of the city. (Of course, this means we need neighbors that welcome new development, but that's another, much bigger topic...)

To get a sense of what's possible by pursuing a strategy of rehabbing and reinvestment, rather than demolition, check out the success of Patterson Park Community Development Corporation, in Baltimore (a city that pretty defies all attempts at improvement).