Spokane7
68°
February 7, 2012 in City
Council votes against chance to save Jensen-Byrd building
The Spokane City Council might have had the chance to stop demolition of the historic Jensen-Byrd building for campus housing, but instead sidestepped a resolution calling for the building to be saved.
Executives of Campus Advantage, of Austin, Texas, said that a council vote against demolition would have been a signal to them that their project is not welcome in Spokane and that the project would be withdrawn.
The council voted 4-3 against a resolution seeking Washington State University, the owner of the building, and Campus Advantage reconsider plans for demolition. Council President Ben Stuckart was joined by council members Jon Snyder and Amber Waldref in supporting the resolution. Council members Nancy McLaughlin, Mike Fagan, Mike Allen and Steve Salvatori voted no.
The Texas company wants to build housing for as many as 425 students on the site of the 102-year-old hardware warehouse. The company has a purchase agreement with WSU.
An economic development argument persuaded the majority.
“Just because a building is old doesn’t mean it’s usable or savable,” Allen said.
But Stuckart spoke for the minority when he said, “I am going to come down on the side of preservation in this case.”
He said painting the issue as a choice between preservation or economic development was inaccurate, since he and other council members favor both.
Nearly three dozen people testified, including members of Spokane Preservation Advocates.
Salvatori pointed out that he is an SPA member and co-sponsored the resolution with Snyder.
He said Campus Advantage should be applauded for its decision to “come invest in Spokane.”
During testimony, Juliet Sinisterra, owner of Sun People Dry Goods Co. in a historic building at Second Avenue and Browne Street, told the council, “The Jensen-Byrd Building is irreplaceable.”
MLK Jr. Way opens Thursday 
DickAdams on February 07 at 9:11 a.m.
I guess my question to Stuckart would be, does he know the difference between conflict of interest as a member of preservation crowd? Or maybe he talked with his rival for President of the Council, Dennis Hession? I remember Hession wanting the city to intervene and dictate to the owners of a dilapidated building on Riverside and Howard. A move that would add to the stack of IOUs, by the reckless spending habits of the city council at the time. The city of Spokane has always spent more money than it takes is in. The city merely puts an IOU in the cash register, at least as long as I`ve lived in Spokane (over 2 decades). The city councils have been consistent though, in lock step with the officials within the power structure, at city hall. Its the usual way, i. e., Management by crisis. When businesses In the private sector, operate in by crisis it usually precedes bankruptcy. IMO, I was pleased the current council seems to want to change the way city business is conducted and I see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Al_Loysius on February 07 at 2:10 p.m.
Sometimes old= historic.
Sometimes old= old.
LarryCebula on February 07 at 5:24 p.m.
There is no private property issue here, the Jensen-Byrd is public property owned by Washington State University.
The testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the building. The only testimony against was from Campus Advantage execs (who flew up from Austin, Texas), some WSU administrators who drove up from Pullman, and some guy from Greater Spokane. Professional architects testified that the building could be reused. Ron Wells explained how he could save the building and make a profit. It was pointed out that the Jensen-Byrd is right next to a big empty lot, already owned by WSU, big enough to construct their planned student housing.
Steve Salvatori needs to turn in his membership card in the Spokane Preservation Advocates.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 08 at 1:48 a.m.
Larry ,,,,no it’s private now. Funded and bought. It’s suitable for the wrecking ball. It has nothing to offer. You’re pretty liberal when it comes to other peoples’ money.
Cheaper to build new. Much better living situation as well. New= better tax structure for both the city and the developer.
Sometimes old= too old.