Raider88, I sure hope you aren't suggesting I am one of your so called "conspiracy theorists" as everything said in my posts is on the record and can be verified. If there is any part of what I said that is in question, please post it here. Perhaps something I said hit a little to close to home???

Dear Mr. Messerly,

By now you have learned that most of the posts left on this site are the work of some of the finest conspiracy theorists that Portsmouth has to offer. As such, I suggest you not bother by answering these folks via your own post. It will accomplish NOTHING!

Continue with your due diligence, sir. Your efforts are appreciated.

Carry on!

Mr. Messerly, What is wrong with rehashing the past? Schools do it everyday. It's called history. Why do they teach history? So that hopefully we learn from our past mistakes. That doesn't seem to have happened when it comes to Portsmouth.

You see, before you ever came to town, our city administrators were already forming a track record of buying up buildings without listening to the people. The present City Health Dept. building, purchase price and renovation, well in excess of 1 million. The Martings building, purchase price, just short of 2 million with the proposed renovation costs originally estimated at about 5 million. Now said to be more like 8 to 15 million. The Adelphia building was to cost us around 1/2 million, with a little renovation be almost move-in ready. Then we had the former Naval Reserve building that along the way we bought and sunk several hundred thousand into.

The people was told what is now the Health Dept. building was large enough for city offices. As you can see, they were clearly wrong.

The Martings building was a fancy bail-out scheme that was a "done deal" with very little opportunity for the public's input before it was purchased. It was too big for starters, and the people did not like how the deal came down without first being asked for their input.

The Adelphia building, soon after it's purchase was found to have a mold problem that would have to be totally gutted and redone. Total cost to purchase and renovate, in excess of 1 million.

Along the way the city was offered the old rail depot building,which is where the present sheriff's department is located. Purchase price, $1. The old PHS High School, purchase price, $1. Both properties were determined unsuitable for one reason or another by our elected.

So, here we sit, for all practical purposes bankrupt, millions of tax payer dollars squandered on various buildings, some of the tax payer money illegally collected I might add. A present city building that has seen little upkeep done to it for years and years that has deteriorated to a point where it may be economically unwise to renovate.

The last thing we need to do as a city is to be buying another fixer-upper building that come with it some of the very same problems that have come into question when other locations were considered. Problems such as parking, the need to rewire for both electric and networking needs, a new roof, etc., all of which is the case with the St. Mary's building.

Solutions you ask? Are there any good ones? Until the city gets it's financials in better shape, I really don't see a solid solution. No matter what direction is taken, it's going to cost a lot of money. Money the city doesn't have.

I propose one similar to what was recently proposed by the city building committee. Let's form a list of all city-owned property to start. Even though I don't think they would go along with it, ask the Martings Foundation to release the 1.4 million or whatever the amount is, and use it to help pay for the demolition of the Marting's properties. Thanks to a recent article, we now know it's not as sound of a building as we were told it was.

Sell the Adelphia property. Sell the present city building property. Isn't that said to be a prime piece of real estate? That should fetch a few dollars.

I then propose a new building be built where the Martings building now stands. A modern, steel-framed building, big enough to house all city offices. I would also suggest the city and county work together and explore combining the two health departments and use the existing city health dept. building.

You might be wondering where the police department would be located. I would have them located in the same new building or take the following into consideration. A golden opportunity for the city and county was missed a few years ago when the new county jail and sheriff's office was built. It's not too late to still take advantage of but would take a lot of negotiating and surrendering of power. Build a new police office building on the county jail property, link the two buildings together. Within that building include 2 courtrooms for the judges. This would save money by cutting out the need to transport between the jail and courts and we could have one unified "safety and justice" center. 911 services between city and county could also be combined, like originally intended, and be yet another savings. Lawrence Co. and Ironton is doing this now.

I realize all of this takes money. Money that I've already said the city doesn't have. But really, if we're going to spend millions on renovating 80 or 100 year old buildings, wouldn't the taxpayer be getting more bang for their buck if we built new and housed everything under 1 roof? Wouldn't combining of services be in the best interest of how tax dollars are being spent? Think about the savings realized in insurance and upkeep by locating under 1 roof and using modern technology.

Ultimately though, what I believe would work best as far as taxpayer dollars are concerned but good luck in making it happen, convert to countywide government.

So there you have not just one proposal, but two. It doesn't really matter though. Until you can solve the money issue, there's no point in looking any further. I just don't see any other way of finding additional money unless taxes are raised and that is the last thing you want to do with an economy like what we have now.

Mr. Messerly you really need to educate yourself more before you jump into this. Educate yourself on the purchase of the present City Health Dept. building next door to your offices. Educate yourself on how the city obtained the former Adelphia building. Educate yourself about the way the city came to own the Marting's building. Once you've done that, then educate yourself about the city politics since the late 1970's. The city has been offered buildings in the past. Some as cheap as $1 but the city refused them for various reasons. One building offered and passed up by the city was the former PHS Highschool. One reason given was the inability to upgrade the electrical and networking needs for modern day. Now do you not think that would also be the case with the St. Mary's School building? Another issue cited for the need to vacate the present city building is the need for additional space. Once again, the St. Mary's location I'd venture to say has less space than the present city building. Don't go blaming the people. The people of this town for years have spoken up and said what they want but the City Council members have not listened. Don't you find it a bit interesting that you have Mr. Hatcher and Mr. Albrecht, both proclaimed as "developers" but neither are interested in the Marting's land? I especially find that interesting when it comes to Mr. Hatcher since he's bought and owned 1/3 of the town at one point or another. Maybe you should offer the Portsmouth Daily Times building to the city at a bargain price. That building is way too big for your needs. At least half of that building space is no longer needed since you are no longer printing the paper out of there. I'm sorry but it's people like you that don't understand where we've been and come up with hairbrained ideas like the St. Mary's building that keep this city in turmoil.