The Jacksonville Historical Society has published another list of buildings it says the city cannot afford to lose.
Why not?
Comment in Daily Record: “Save anything that is old? Except offensive statues, of course? What is the purpose of saving something if it doesn’t have a purpose? Will tourists flock to Jacksonville to buy a ticket to see a shotgun house or a boring 5 story office building that was used for Sunday School? Does someone need to spend their budget of tax dollars and donations or lose it going forward? My point is why not preserve what is worth preserving and let the rest return to dust.”
That response captures the essence of the issue.
If every structure in the city is “historic” just because it has been here a while or it was occupied by someone with a particular skin color, then history has no meaning.
Why continually try to ensure that Jacksonville looks like it did a century ago at a time when civic leaders are clamoring to improve and modernize the city’s core?
The fact that we are in the midst of a national history cleansing by people who are trying to fundamentally transform the United States makes it even more important to use rational discrimination about spending taxpayer dollars to preserve artifacts.
The Far Left efforts to revise history focus on destroying, not preserving, things from the past.
The local society’s list includes old government school buildings, a former auto dealership and other structures of dubious historic value.
One glaring example is three old wooden shacks that already have been moved once, at considerable expense. They are the same kind of buildings that were torn down by the thousands during the “urban renewal” heyday of the Great Society, when the federal government was going to eliminate poverty but instead made it permanent.
Another is an old building that literally is falling apart. Only some of the outside walls remain. Its historical value is that people with black skin used to congregate there.
Lest it become the “Jacksonville Hysterical Society” the society needs to rethink some of the designations it uses. At the very least, private donations should be used to buy and preserve property it deems valuable, not taxpayer funds given involuntarily.
