Since publishing my earlier post about the Historic Preservation Commission, I have heard from Tom Swope, who denied that he knew about the appointment of a new commission member when he and I spoke on Friday morning and suggested, not in jest, that this blog should be called Calumnies of Hudson. He also told me the true sequence of events, which I will now share, with apologies to Swope for suggesting that he had deliberately withheld information.
On Friday morning when we spoke, Swope had no idea that the mayor was ready to appoint someone new to the Historic Preservation Commission. After I left City Hall, Swope got a call from the mayor and went upstairs to meet with him. It was then that the mayor told him that, on the recommendation of Eric Galloway, he was thinking of putting Rick Rector on the Historic Preservation Commission. After meeting with Swope, the mayor called Rector and met with him in the early afternoon. Immediately after that meeting, Rector was sworn in by the city clerk, and his name was promptly added to the roster of members of the HPC on the City of Hudson website.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Not to Be Missed
HPC: Vacancies and Appointments
On Friday morning, Gossips showed up at City Hall for the Historic Preservation Commission meeting to find HPC chair Tom Swope there, alone, explaining that the meeting had been cancelled because there could be no quorum. The HPC has been one member short since Jamison Teale resigned from the commission several months ago, and Swope told me yesterday that it was recently realized that Nick Haddad's term had expired on July 31, 2011, so he could no longer serve on the commission. Since two other members--Jane Smith and David Voorhees--were unable to attend yesterday's meeting, that left only three members--not enough for a quorum--so the meeting had to be cancelled.
We chatted a bit about the vacancies--I expressing the opinion that since there were only two meetings of the HPC left in 2011, it would be nice if Mayor Scalera allowed his successor to appoint the new members--and Swope never disabused me of the idea that there were two vacancies. This morning, in preparation for writing this post, I checked the City of Hudson website to discover that one of the vacancies has already been filled by Rick Rector, whose term will expire on July 31, 2015.
This raises some questions: Why, if one vacancy had been filled, didn't Swope tell me? And why, if one vacancy had been filled, did they have to cancel the meeting? Four members are needed for a quorum, and with six commission members, two of whom were absent, they could have had that. Was Swope afraid that, if he told me about Rector's appointment, Gossips would take issue with having someone who is a close friend of both Swope and Eric Galloway serving on the Historic Preservation Commission?
We chatted a bit about the vacancies--I expressing the opinion that since there were only two meetings of the HPC left in 2011, it would be nice if Mayor Scalera allowed his successor to appoint the new members--and Swope never disabused me of the idea that there were two vacancies. This morning, in preparation for writing this post, I checked the City of Hudson website to discover that one of the vacancies has already been filled by Rick Rector, whose term will expire on July 31, 2015.
This raises some questions: Why, if one vacancy had been filled, didn't Swope tell me? And why, if one vacancy had been filled, did they have to cancel the meeting? Four members are needed for a quorum, and with six commission members, two of whom were absent, they could have had that. Was Swope afraid that, if he told me about Rector's appointment, Gossips would take issue with having someone who is a close friend of both Swope and Eric Galloway serving on the Historic Preservation Commission?
Scenic Hudson Weighs In
On Friday, October 7, Scenic Hudson submitted a letter to the Common Council and to George Stafford, Director of the Department of State Division of Coastal Resources, expressing the opinion that the FGEIS, which the Common Council accepted as complete on September 26, "undermines the positive vision for Hudson by accommodating the continued flow of heavy trucks through South Bay and the city streets. . . ."
The letter concludes: "With all due respect to the City Council, the FGEIS the Council has said is 'complete' does not appear to reflect the community's consensus vision for the waterfront. The FGEIS instead purports to give license--without due consideration of several important alternatives or appropriate environmental analysis--to the industrial use of a new road across South Bay and the continued use of trucks on city streets that likely will undermine other investments in achieving the community's revitalized waterfront vision."
Click to access the full text of the letter.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Challenge Issued for Second Debate
The Hudson City Democrats just issued the following press release:
Hudson Democratic Mayoral candidate Nick Haddad has issued a challenge to his Republican opponent William Hallenbeck, Jr., to a Saturday afternoon debate, October 29th. The debate would be sponsored by the Columbia Paper and community radio station WGXC and would be moderated by the Publisher of the Columbia Paper, Parry Teasdale. WGXC would broadcast the debate live at 90.7FM and on WGXC.org.
The debate would be structured similarly to the League of Women Voters method. Written questions would be submitted by the public. Those questions would be sorted and categorized by the moderator, who would choose which questions were asked. Neither candidate will have any advance knowledge about what questions will be asked.
Victor Mendolia, Chair of the Hudson City Democrats, said, "The voters have a right to have their questions answered and to hear candidates lay out their plans for the city. Nick Haddad is ready and willing to debate the issues with his Republican opponent, not just this time, but in as many forums and venues as is possible before election day. We sincerely hope that Mr. Hallenbeck accepts the offer to debate. The voters deserve nothing less"
The debate would be structured similarly to the League of Women Voters method. Written questions would be submitted by the public. Those questions would be sorted and categorized by the moderator, who would choose which questions were asked. Neither candidate will have any advance knowledge about what questions will be asked.
Victor Mendolia, Chair of the Hudson City Democrats, said, "The voters have a right to have their questions answered and to hear candidates lay out their plans for the city. Nick Haddad is ready and willing to debate the issues with his Republican opponent, not just this time, but in as many forums and venues as is possible before election day. We sincerely hope that Mr. Hallenbeck accepts the offer to debate. The voters deserve nothing less"
Dog Park Meeting Tomorrow
Shown in the photograph are Hudson dogs William and Maltie, with a bit of Boy-Boy in the background, on their leashes, at the Blessing of the Animals last Saturday at Christ Church Episcopal.
Of Interest
Common Council President Don Moore defends the LWRP in today's Register-Star: "MY VIEW: Hudson's future is protected by the LWRP."
Mayoral Debate
The debate is being sponsored by the Hudson African American Leadership Alliance (HAALA) and will be moderated by Reverend Ron Grant. According to the article in the Register-Star, HAALA, which was been around for a while, is now describing itself as a "newly formed community-based organization."
The format proposed for the debate involves opening statements by both candidates, followed by three questions asked of each candidate that, according to HAALA, “speak to the diversity and importance to all citizens.” After this, the public will have the opportunity to pose questions to the candidates. The article states that "HAALA has laid out specific rules for proper decorum."
More About Galloway's Offer to the Library
Since Thursday morning, Gossips has learned more about the deal that Eric Galloway and Galvan Partners/Foundation are offering the Hudson Area Library. It seems the part of the Armory that Galloway/Galvan intends to lease to the library is the first floor rear section, which apparently is 10,000 square feet of self-contained space. We're not exactly sure what part of the building this is, but "rear section" doesn't sound like the magnificent soaring main area of the building previously used as the Armory Art & Antique Gallery.
Before getting into the details of the Galloway/Galvan offer, let's review the "broad strokes" of the agreement Theresa Parsons and Mark Orton thought they had discussed with Eric Galloway and Henry van Ameringen, as reported by Gossips on September 15:
Then there's the lease. A lease for a dollar a month for thirty years seems too good to be true, and it turns out it is. Although the amount is only $12 annually, the lease being offered is a triple net lease. Wikipedia defines a triple net lease as "a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance on the property. In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with the repair and maintenance of any common area." This sounds like all the financial burden for the library of owning 400 State Street with none of the benefits--chief among them being exemption from property taxes.
And there's one more thing. The library is expected to pay the costs associated with ensuring that the space meets all the code requirements for use as a public library, which could include lead and asbestos abatement and installing a sprinkler system.
One library board member is reported to have said that the terms of the final agreement are still to be negotiated, but what's been outlined here seems to be what Galloway is offering, and the library board, having sold the library's building to him, is hardly negotiating from a position of strength.
Before getting into the details of the Galloway/Galvan offer, let's review the "broad strokes" of the agreement Theresa Parsons and Mark Orton thought they had discussed with Eric Galloway and Henry van Ameringen, as reported by Gossips on September 15:
- The library will determine its functional and operational requirements, which Parsons referred to as a "wish list," to determine the scope of what needs to be designed.
- Galvan Partners will carry out the "technical implementation," which presumably involves both the design and construction, at its own expense.
- The library will then occupy the space created for it as a tenant with a thirty-year lease, paying the utilities for its portion of the building and a dollar a month in rent.
Then there's the lease. A lease for a dollar a month for thirty years seems too good to be true, and it turns out it is. Although the amount is only $12 annually, the lease being offered is a triple net lease. Wikipedia defines a triple net lease as "a lease agreement on a property where the tenant or lessee agrees to pay all real estate taxes, building insurance, and maintenance on the property. In such a lease, the tenant or lessee is responsible for all costs associated with the repair and maintenance of any common area." This sounds like all the financial burden for the library of owning 400 State Street with none of the benefits--chief among them being exemption from property taxes.
And there's one more thing. The library is expected to pay the costs associated with ensuring that the space meets all the code requirements for use as a public library, which could include lead and asbestos abatement and installing a sprinkler system.
One library board member is reported to have said that the terms of the final agreement are still to be negotiated, but what's been outlined here seems to be what Galloway is offering, and the library board, having sold the library's building to him, is hardly negotiating from a position of strength.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Haddad Campaign Responds
Gossips Note: The following response to Wednesday's endorsements by current mayor Rick Scalera and former mayor Dick Tracy was released today by the Nick Haddad for Mayor campaign.
The Register-Star published a press release yesterday, the subject of which was an endorsement of Republican Bill Hallenbeck by current Democratic Mayor Rick Scalera and former Mayor Dick Tracy. Although it missed a byline and was clearly an opinion piece, the Register decided to categorize it as news, and amongst the hokey falsities and sloppy reasoning was a clear demonstration of what Nick has been saying all along:
For all intents and purposes the "current administration" has been in City Hall since the mid-nineties and before, during which time the City has undergone dramatic changes. The revitalization of Warren Street, the influx of new and vibrant businesses, the restoration and rehabilitation of a number of historic buildings and residences, and the rise in the standard of living of many of our citizens.
All of this has occurred despite any meaningful support or involvement from City Hall, or the folks who've "dipped their collective beaks" for decades in the "industry of need," a product of so many citizens living without meaningful jobs and opportunities. It might be serendipitous, but I think it more a result of right minded people finding a place they call home, and an environment they find conducive to fulfillment.
We are poised on the cusp of a true "citizens based" renaissance, yet there is so much more to follow. Imagine what more we might have achieved, and how better we might have addressed the needs of so many, had we not been met with rancor and obstruction from City Hall?
To be fair, we can thank the current administration for removing the tank farm at the waterfront, and giving the City a lovely park. Perhaps that is the only progressive physical act the administration has to its credit.
What we are left with is a very unpopular proposal for developing the waterfront. One that is not the product of citizens' input and again cleaves to a group with very narrow self interests.
We have watched the systematic razing of historic buildings, the selling off of properties to insiders at closed door meetings. We have watched hundreds of thousands of tax dollars given to businesses in the City which have either made off with the money illegally or sold the property without due investment. Interestingly, the only "new park" in the City, on the 200 block of Warren Street, was created years ago by local taxpayers.
So what are we to do with the future? Do we hand over the City to the very same group that has taken a "business as usual" approach? A group whose currency is based upon poverty and patronage? Or do we become inclusive and transparent? Asking from our engaged and generous citizenry the very best they have to offer. Do we address the 25 percent of our citizenry who live at or below the poverty line, and ask them, what can we do together to make our City a place where all of us can grow and prosper?
So it is, the current administration's endorsement of my opponent is hardly surprising, for any attempt to make the system truly representative flies in the face of their narrow self interest.
The answer is clear, the future is now, and to benefit us all, we need to create a cohesive City; a City that respects each and everyone regardless of station, religion, or race, a place for all of us.
Only we can move Hudson forward, together.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas C. Haddad
For all intents and purposes the "current administration" has been in City Hall since the mid-nineties and before, during which time the City has undergone dramatic changes. The revitalization of Warren Street, the influx of new and vibrant businesses, the restoration and rehabilitation of a number of historic buildings and residences, and the rise in the standard of living of many of our citizens.
All of this has occurred despite any meaningful support or involvement from City Hall, or the folks who've "dipped their collective beaks" for decades in the "industry of need," a product of so many citizens living without meaningful jobs and opportunities. It might be serendipitous, but I think it more a result of right minded people finding a place they call home, and an environment they find conducive to fulfillment.
We are poised on the cusp of a true "citizens based" renaissance, yet there is so much more to follow. Imagine what more we might have achieved, and how better we might have addressed the needs of so many, had we not been met with rancor and obstruction from City Hall?
To be fair, we can thank the current administration for removing the tank farm at the waterfront, and giving the City a lovely park. Perhaps that is the only progressive physical act the administration has to its credit.
What we are left with is a very unpopular proposal for developing the waterfront. One that is not the product of citizens' input and again cleaves to a group with very narrow self interests.
We have watched the systematic razing of historic buildings, the selling off of properties to insiders at closed door meetings. We have watched hundreds of thousands of tax dollars given to businesses in the City which have either made off with the money illegally or sold the property without due investment. Interestingly, the only "new park" in the City, on the 200 block of Warren Street, was created years ago by local taxpayers.
So what are we to do with the future? Do we hand over the City to the very same group that has taken a "business as usual" approach? A group whose currency is based upon poverty and patronage? Or do we become inclusive and transparent? Asking from our engaged and generous citizenry the very best they have to offer. Do we address the 25 percent of our citizenry who live at or below the poverty line, and ask them, what can we do together to make our City a place where all of us can grow and prosper?
So it is, the current administration's endorsement of my opponent is hardly surprising, for any attempt to make the system truly representative flies in the face of their narrow self interest.
The answer is clear, the future is now, and to benefit us all, we need to create a cohesive City; a City that respects each and everyone regardless of station, religion, or race, a place for all of us.
Only we can move Hudson forward, together.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas C. Haddad
More from The Valley Alliance
Today, The Valley Alliance followed up the ten-point brief submitted by the group's attorney, Warren Replansky, with twenty-four pages of supplementary comments. Here is the executive summary of that document:
I. RAIL ALTERNATIVE: The Plan has yet to consider a rail alternative for aggregate transport which bypasses the Waterfront altogether, making the Hudson dock area available for more compatible, beneficial uses.
II. SEGMENTATION: Paid for by O&G, this Generic Environmental Impact Statement is not 'generic' at all, but tailored instead to a single, site-specific project, whose review has been illegally segmented under SEQRA.
III. 'MAKING THE MOST OF YOUR WATERFRONT': The clear lack of community consensus and public acceptance of this Plan endangers its future implementation and success, a problem which needs urgent correction, with State assistance.
IV. ABANDONED RAILROAD BED: Holcim itself has repeatedly described the 'causeway' as an abandoned, demolished, dismantled and/or inactive 'railbed'; yet the GEIS insists that it's always been a road.
V. MOORE LETTER: The head of the lead agency for this review has arbitrarily and capriciously discarded his own prior laundry list of problems with this Plan, pushing it forward without resolving those concerns.
Click here to view the complete document.
I. RAIL ALTERNATIVE: The Plan has yet to consider a rail alternative for aggregate transport which bypasses the Waterfront altogether, making the Hudson dock area available for more compatible, beneficial uses.
II. SEGMENTATION: Paid for by O&G, this Generic Environmental Impact Statement is not 'generic' at all, but tailored instead to a single, site-specific project, whose review has been illegally segmented under SEQRA.
III. 'MAKING THE MOST OF YOUR WATERFRONT': The clear lack of community consensus and public acceptance of this Plan endangers its future implementation and success, a problem which needs urgent correction, with State assistance.
IV. ABANDONED RAILROAD BED: Holcim itself has repeatedly described the 'causeway' as an abandoned, demolished, dismantled and/or inactive 'railbed'; yet the GEIS insists that it's always been a road.
V. MOORE LETTER: The head of the lead agency for this review has arbitrarily and capriciously discarded his own prior laundry list of problems with this Plan, pushing it forward without resolving those concerns.
Click here to view the complete document.
Cheryl Roberts and the LWRP
In the hour-long meeting, Cheryl Roberts, as a principal author of the LWRP and counsel to the Planning Commission, gave the commission an overview of the document and led the members of the commission through what was expected of them. In the process, Roberts said a couple of things that are worthy of note. Speaking of the zoning that seeks to regulate the use of the port and the "causeway road" through South Bay, Roberts said, "We're kind of pushing the envelope here, but so far Holcim is OK with this." Later, when explaining how any change of use in the CR (Core Riverfront) Zone would require that the Planning Commission review it and grant a conditional use permit, Roberts commented, "I'm not convinced this is going to work; DOS thinks it's going to work."
It was decided that the Planning Commission would have a special workshop meeting on October 19 at 6 p.m. at City Hall at which the members of the commission, after having the chance to study the zoning documents independently, could ask questions of Roberts. Now here's where Roberts' dual role as author of the LWRP and counsel to the Planning Commission seems to get problematic. The Planning Commission must submit a written report of their findings to the Common Council, the titular lead agency for the LWRP. Roberts told the Planning Commission last night that she would have a draft of that report ready for the workshop meeting next week.
Could it be that Roberts is wearing too many hats when it comes to the LWRP? Does it seem appropriate that the person who took major responsibility for writing the LWRP is also the person who is advising the Planning Commission in their review of the document and drafting the report of their findings?
Of the Library and the Armory, Part II
At the September meeting of the Hudson Area Library Board of Trustees, board president Theresa Parsons and vice president Mark Orton described a dream come true for the perennially cash-strapped library. The library board, staff, and patrons could conceptualize the perfect library space, Eric Galloway and the Galvan Foundation would create it for them within the Armory building, and the library could live there happily for the next thirty years, paying only a dollar a month in rent.
But now that the library board has sold the only home the library has ever known to Galloway, and entrusted one of Hudson's most architecturally significant buildings to someone who has so far not shown himself to be a very worthy steward of architectural antiquity, it seems that the details of the offer of space in the Armory may not be as generous as Parsons and Orton thought.
Gossips has heard that Galloway is offering the library 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in the Armory for a mere dollar a month, but the library must retrofit and furnish the space at its own expense. That could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the ongoing expenses that the library board was hoping to escape by abandoning its historic building don't seem to be going away either. Gossips has also heard that in addition to the dollar a month rent, the library will have to pay insurance, utilities, and maintenance for their space, as well as share in the cost of any improvements to the common spaces of the property.
Could this be true? Could the library's future not be as rosy and secure as we thought? Say it ain't so.
Photograph of the Armory by Scott Baldinger, from his blog, Word on the Street.
Gossips has heard that Galloway is offering the library 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in the Armory for a mere dollar a month, but the library must retrofit and furnish the space at its own expense. That could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the ongoing expenses that the library board was hoping to escape by abandoning its historic building don't seem to be going away either. Gossips has also heard that in addition to the dollar a month rent, the library will have to pay insurance, utilities, and maintenance for their space, as well as share in the cost of any improvements to the common spaces of the property.
Could this be true? Could the library's future not be as rosy and secure as we thought? Say it ain't so.
Photograph of the Armory by Scott Baldinger, from his blog, Word on the Street.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Important Waterfront Development
The Valley Alliance website has a summary of the issues and a link to the complete memorandum.
Not to Be Missed
Sam Pratt assesses the significance of Rick Scalera's endorsement of Bill Hallenbeck on his blog: "About that endorsement."
GEIS Findings Statement
Common Council President Don Moore announced at last night's informal Common Council meeting that he expected the GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement) findings statement to be ready for consideration by the Common Council at its regular meeting on October 18. Moore said that he wanted it to be delivered to the aldermen by the weekend so that they would have time to read and study it before voting on its acceptance.
SOLD!
A resolution was introduced last night at the informal Common Council meeting to sell the house at 545-547 State Street for $45,000. The house, it will be remembered, was seized for nonpayment of property taxes. The City tried to sell the house at auction on September 14, but the minimum bid was set at $49,017--the amount due in back taxes--and there were no bidders. After the auction, someone offered $5,500 for the house, and a resolution to sell it for that amount came before the Common Council on September 20. It was decided then, however, that, rather than accept the low offer, the City Treasurer would solicit more bids, which is what happened. There were three more bids, in addition to the original one, and the high bid was for $45,000. Hudson's Old Boy Network
It should come as no surprise to anyone, except perhaps Victor Mendolia and Don Moore, but the Register-Star reports today that current mayor Rick Scalera and former mayor Dick Tracy have both endorsed Bill Hallenbeck: "Mayor, ex-mayor back Hallenbeck's mayoral bid." Needless to say, "life-long resident" is a prominent theme in what both men have to say about Hallenbeck.
Oddly, the piece, which appears to be a press release since it has no byline, underreports the many years that Scalera has been the mayor of Hudson. It says he "held the mayor's reins from 2001 to 2005 and again from 2008 up to the present." Those of us who "just didn't arrive on the scene," even though the mayor may think we did, remember that Scalera was also mayor from 1994 to 1999.
Oddly, the piece, which appears to be a press release since it has no byline, underreports the many years that Scalera has been the mayor of Hudson. It says he "held the mayor's reins from 2001 to 2005 and again from 2008 up to the present." Those of us who "just didn't arrive on the scene," even though the mayor may think we did, remember that Scalera was also mayor from 1994 to 1999.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Watching 255-257 Columbia Street
Last Thursday, on October 6, Mayor Rick Scalera was quoted in the Register-Star as saying that the City intended to move forward with its plan to demolish the old CC Club at Columbia and Third streets "beginning on either Monday or Tuesday." When Gossips last checked--at approximately 11 a.m. today--there was no evidence that the demolition had begun.
The Touch of Galloway Revisited
In the summer of 2010, Gossips did a series called The Touch of Galloway, documenting buildings that Eric Galloway has built, altered, or restored in Hudson. Perhaps the time has come to revisit those buildings, since it appears that a couple of them are having some problems.
Last winter, 9 Willard Place, the larger of the two faux Greek Revival houses introduced into the authentic late 19th-century architecture of the neighborhood that began life as Hudson's only private street, underwent extensive interior renovation, which apparently started out as cosmetic alterations but ended up addressing other problems--some of them structural--discovered in the process. Work has now moved to the exterior and appears to involve an area under the eaves on the west wall. (The roof, according to sources, has already been replaced twice since the house was built in 2004.) It is not clear if the reasons are related, but the siding on the north wall of the house has also been removed.
The carriage house behind 317 Allen Street, which was converted to a residence as part of the subdivision of the property by Galloway in 2004, is also currently undergoing extensive work. A few months ago, the current owner decamped to an apartment so that, Gossips has heard, structural problems and moisture issues in the building could be addressed.
Then there's General Worth's birthplace at 211 Union Street. The rendering presented to the Historic Preservation Commission shows the cellar windows in place, but in reality, the cellar windows on the front and the visible side of the house have disappeared altogether.
Ventilation is critical to moisture control in historic buildings--moisture being the most prevalent cause of deterioration in older buildings--and there is ample evidence that sealing up cellar windows exacerbates moisture problems. This being the case, one has to wonder why all the cellar windows on General Worth's birthplace--one of Hudson's oldest and most historically significant buildings--have been sealed up in this manner.
Last winter, 9 Willard Place, the larger of the two faux Greek Revival houses introduced into the authentic late 19th-century architecture of the neighborhood that began life as Hudson's only private street, underwent extensive interior renovation, which apparently started out as cosmetic alterations but ended up addressing other problems--some of them structural--discovered in the process. Work has now moved to the exterior and appears to involve an area under the eaves on the west wall. (The roof, according to sources, has already been replaced twice since the house was built in 2004.) It is not clear if the reasons are related, but the siding on the north wall of the house has also been removed.
The carriage house behind 317 Allen Street, which was converted to a residence as part of the subdivision of the property by Galloway in 2004, is also currently undergoing extensive work. A few months ago, the current owner decamped to an apartment so that, Gossips has heard, structural problems and moisture issues in the building could be addressed.
Then there's General Worth's birthplace at 211 Union Street. The rendering presented to the Historic Preservation Commission shows the cellar windows in place, but in reality, the cellar windows on the front and the visible side of the house have disappeared altogether.
Ventilation is critical to moisture control in historic buildings--moisture being the most prevalent cause of deterioration in older buildings--and there is ample evidence that sealing up cellar windows exacerbates moisture problems. This being the case, one has to wonder why all the cellar windows on General Worth's birthplace--one of Hudson's oldest and most historically significant buildings--have been sealed up in this manner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)