
I have a copy of the actual shoring plans in .pdf. If you are interested, please e-mail me.

This is perhaps the most telling item of the 134 pages: A two page report introduced as "Revised Site Report." Click on image for greater detail - these two pages speak for themselves. Notice the use of BOLD type and the use of the words "compromised," "jeopardized" and "immediate."


This gives you a clue what would happen when a contractor attempts to rehabilitate the building. What it comes down to is what will we have when we're finished renovating this building at a much greater cost, due to the greater amount of unknowns, than we would have for spending less money building a new building that met all the current construction standards and would be more aesthetically appealing? If money were no object, which it most definitely is, I would say renovate - and probably in the same design that is there now. I just don't think that is a realistic option - especially in the eye of the public looking down at a ballot request for a General Obligation bond to fund the improvements.