Expanding upon some information found on your Web site under “Citizen's Say,” here are some additional facts about the stalled proposal to relocate Aurora's post office.
The offer of formal village access to some of Wells College's lakefront property in exchange for the demolition of our current post office has been off the table for over a year; it expired back in March of 2006.
Pleasant Rowland's post office relocation proposal did not offer “new” parking; it only restored some parking lost through her development. (Construction of new delivery driveways and re-positioning of a building eliminated parking spaces.)
No June 1, 2007 deadline was adopted by the U.S. Postal Service or the village board; it apparently was an ultimatum from Rowland.
The USPS did not plan for three years to move into Aurora's old school house, now called the Heary Building. Faced with the termination of its lease by our village board, the USPS accepted the Heary Building as a possible new location in November 2006 when no other alternatives were presented.
However, once that building was accepted as a possible location, Rowland failed to enter into the required design review and negotiation processes with the USPS. Given that failure, the property's ultimate removal from consideration was inevitable.
Almost every municipality owns some real estate. Such ownership is not new in the Village of Aurora. It should present no serious problem for any mayor, particularly if the municipality leases to such a reputable tenant as the U.S. Postal Service, whose village presence is essential to the welfare and vitality of our community.
Karen A. Hindenlang
Aurora
Pleasant Rowland's post office relocation proposal did not offer “new” parking; it only restored some parking lost through her development. (Construction of new delivery driveways and re-positioning of a building eliminated parking spaces.)
No June 1, 2007 deadline was adopted by the U.S. Postal Service or the village board; it apparently was an ultimatum from Rowland.
The USPS did not plan for three years to move into Aurora's old school house, now called the Heary Building. Faced with the termination of its lease by our village board, the USPS accepted the Heary Building as a possible new location in November 2006 when no other alternatives were presented.
However, once that building was accepted as a possible location, Rowland failed to enter into the required design review and negotiation processes with the USPS. Given that failure, the property's ultimate removal from consideration was inevitable.
Almost every municipality owns some real estate. Such ownership is not new in the Village of Aurora. It should present no serious problem for any mayor, particularly if the municipality leases to such a reputable tenant as the U.S. Postal Service, whose village presence is essential to the welfare and vitality of our community.
Karen A. Hindenlang
Aurora
