Distorted like a giant alien Halloween mask
Conspiracy theorist instantly set to wonder, however, since the owner, Cinda Jones, wished to demolish it a couple years ago but was prevented by a one year "demolition delay" order of the Amherst Historical Commission.
All that remains is the view
The public safety hazard it presented was the main reason she cited for the demolition, as it could suddenly fall and do collateral damage. Like this for instance:
That demolition order expired July 28th, thus Ms. Jones was free to demolish it that very day, kind of like what Amherst College did with an old fence around one of their historic houses on college street. Now it will cost even more to dispose of the remaining rubble.
Historic preservation is a worthy, noble endeavor that dates back almost to the founding of our great nation (plus fifty years of course). But property rights -- "A man's home is his castle"-- dates back to the very day of our founding.
Once the pile is cleared and the area zoning changed, a new mixed use development (commercial and residential), one with a great view, will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the old trolley barn. All aboard!
Original Trolley Barn Cowles Road North Amherst, built 1897. File Photo July, 2011
Second Trolley Barn, now Amherst DPW, built 1917A brief history of the local Trolley by Jonathan Tucker
I think we will actually start rebuilding north of cowls road under COM, before a zoning change occurs. And for the record there's not much need for conspiracy theories since we readily admit we expected that barn would not survive that day in tact. I expected the roof to fall and was hoping that would be all though. I was stunned by how quickly the whole building was down.
ReplyDeleteCinda
Wish I saw it in person before it fell (or knew what it was when I did see it- so I could've paid more attention!)
ReplyDeleteNorth Amherst needs a little more attention!
I hear a young couple has taken on the Cowls home on Meadow St- they are actively working on it!
Cowls never owned house on meadow st.
DeleteThere is no and was no cowls house on meadow street!!
ReplyDeleteGeeze, now I'm gonna be accused of being a Fox News.
ReplyDeleteExcept, like not being able to control the graphics they used with my appearance, I can't control my Anons.
And no, I can't simply edit a comment slightly to correct spelling or a single botched fact like I can text in the main body of the article.
With Comments it's all-or-nothing.
No prob Larry. An anon saying cowls owned something we didn't is likely the least slanderous thing anyone's said about me this week! ;)
ReplyDeleteBased on the one or two really, really nasty ones directed at me (that I did not publish), I can well imagine.
ReplyDeleteDH Jones had (and recently sold) the listing for "WD Cowls Manor House 237 Meadow St"
ReplyDeleteA simple google search brings up the info(and pictures)
no relation -or a family feud- or misinformation?
We need more info!
Ha! Never knew about that history. Cool. 300 years in this town means there are more than a few houses built or owned by Cowls family. Black Walnut Inn ell is another of them. just was afraid folks were getting the impression that cowls had recently owned and then sold a house and acres on meadow st. "potentially for student housing."
DeleteThe house was built by Walter Dickinson Cowls, 150 yrs ago.
ReplyDeleteNot now owned by his family business Cinda runs.
DH Jones associates it with Cinda's family history- why deny it???
ReplyDeleteIt's part of North Amherst History-being brought back to life by a young couple- I look forward to its
progress
You seemed to suggest she owned it. She does not ; and made that perfectly clear.
ReplyDeleteDH Jones was the one to state that it is part of the Cowls family history- not me
ReplyDeleteProbably not DH himself, I don't think he spends much time in Amherst these days.
ReplyDeleteI seem him every morning at a local eatery. Probably spends more time in Amherst than most people.
ReplyDeleteThere are two libertarian absolutes -- persons who own property can do whatever they want to with it and no one receives any form of subsidy from the government.
ReplyDeleteCinda Jones appears to want to have it both ways -- selling land to the government while still having full use of it (the Paul C Jones Working Forest), I suspect that their property is taxed based on the agricultural (working forest) nature of it and not what it would be worth in other uses -- all of these are forms of governmental subsidies which should be an affront to anyone who wants to be a private property absolutist.
If Cinda could make the point that she receives no benefits from the government, then she would have the legitimate claim to be able to do whatever she damn well pleased with her own property, "hysterical" commission be damned.
But she can't.
And I want to know what cause that building to lean so dramatically in just a year. (Buildings usually take longer to fall over like this...)
I also want to know why a building that clearly was that structurally unsound appears not to have been secured at all -- no fencing, no nothing...
Drunken college kids deserve what they get, but 5-year-olds don't, and have we forgotten the tragic drowning of the APD officer's kid a few years back? These things do happen...
The legal term is "attractive nuisance" but beyond the legal liability, how would the Jones folk feel if someone's child got hurt or killed in one of those buildings? Amherst is a small town, it likely is going to be the child of someone whom you know.
5-year-olds wander anywhere & everywhere, 10-year-olds love to explore. They have no concept of danger and a really good habit of either climbing up where they ought not or knocking things down on top of themselves. I have an uneasy feeling about those now-abandoned buildings on the old sawmill property, you don't want children in them.
After a fire, there is a *reason* why we require that all of the first floor windows be "boarded up" and part of that is to keep children out of the building. So too here -- and memory is that this was wide open.
If nothing else, cheap red plastic snow fencing. Something...
And why isn't the town saying something about this? Maybe they can't *make* Jones do anything, but they sure can recommend it...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous Character Assassin:
ReplyDeleteYour resentful and mean-spirited post succeeded in hurting me.
Re #1: (I’m a hypocrite as a libertarian because Cowls sold property rights to a non-profit that raised funds from the state and federal government): Private land trusts have been coming to Cowls for decades, asking my grandfather, my dad, then me to sell them Brushy Mountain – or at least the development rights to Brushy Mountain, to protect it for the “greater good.” For 30 years we said no. The Kestrel Trust finally succeeded in convincing us to come up with a value for developing Brushy Mountain, and to sell that “property.” After Cowls signed a purchase and sale agreement with the Kestrel Trust, this private non-profit raised money to buy this property right (for less than market value) from state, federal, and non-profit conservation partners. This free market real estate transaction between willing private, state and federal buyers and family sellers does not conflict with my libertarian views at all. Interestingly, the underlying need for us to raise such capital, and having to sell off such land interests, was to pay generational transfer taxes to keep our agricultural based business whole for the next generation. The need to sell part of what you have to keep the rest generationally is the only part that was upsetting for this libertarian.
Re #2: (I’m a hypocrite as a libertarian because Cowls pays agricultural rate taxes for its timberland): The State of Massachusetts collects property taxes to pay for necessary (and some unnecessary in my POV) public infrastructure and government services. MA wants to encourage the sustainability and growth of agricultural enterprises but understands that farm and forest lands do not generate sufficient funds to pay market rate taxes. Therefore the state created an incentive program offering a lower tax rate in exchange for a 10 year contractual obligation not to change the use of land from agriculture to development, and to be under significant state oversight and paperwork obligations. Cowls voluntarily has entered this contractual agreement in order to make viable its timberland management operations. I do not have any conflict as a libertarian in entering voluntary contracts with the state government. Unlike with our CR, this state tax contract does not require public access, but Cowls willingly allows this on its timberland.
Re #3: (If Cinda received no benefit from the government then she would be able to do what she wants with her property without regard to historical commission.) I disagree. The historical commission has jurisdiction and delayed demolition for a year. We waited longer than that to deal with the problem. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights clearly say I have property rights no matter if taxes are imposed and at what rate; if I sell property to the government upon non-profit and government request; or if I drive on public streets.
Re #4: (How did building lean so dramatically in one year?) It did not lean dramatically in one year. Over the past 60 years it has increasingly leaned. In the 1960s my grandfather had cables tied from the south peak to the barn’s carrying timber and that did wonders in keeping the barn up. Over the past 15 years we’ve noticed increased lean. After our barn’s lean became public knowledge due to historical commission hearings, folks paid more attention to it and noted that it looks worse this year than last. In fact it is worse this year from last, but it’s likely only a matter of another degree or two. Which can look scary after a certain lean.
Re #5: (Building was not secured and was not fenced so public was in danger and Cowls is jeopardizing public safety) Not true. We had a cable fence around the whole barn, sufficiently distant to protect the public from any potential fall. This safety effort was approved as sufficient by members of this historical commission. There were a dozen signs on the cables and around the building saying “Keep Out” “No Trespassing,” etc. We left the doors all open so it would be clear and evident to passersby and to the police if anyone were violating our trespass notices.
ReplyDeleteRe: #6 (Cowls is jeopardizing public safety by not boarding up or snow fencing its old mill building. Why isn’t the town or the police saying something about physically preventing 5 and 10 year olds access?) When we closed the mill I proactively called the police and asked for advice about how to secure and protect us from unwanted access. The police acknowledged our posting lots of signs around the perimeter of the property and on the buildings themselves and said that was reasonable toward prevention. They understood the near impossibility of preventing access to a largely open pole barn and the need for police visibility into same. A snow fence is not a bad idea but it’s impractical since we use the mill building for lumber and equipment storage and must access it with forklifts frequently. It’s still an industrial site. It’s much safer than it was with mill equipment inside.
#7: It does not surprise me in the least that one who publicly assassinates my character and integrity would not show his own strength of character by signing his name to his post.
#8: I find your cruel and incredibly hurtful sniping no better than the bullying that “different” kids endure in Amherst schools. I do not deserve to be a target of your hate because I am living my life and managing my family business.
I hope someday soon folks of all ages will live and let live; stop being so judgmental and presumptive; and treat others with basic human kindness and respect.
Exhaustedly,
Cinda
To Anon. September 9, 2012 11:05 AM
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your disparaging post toward the Jones family, a saying comes to mind, "you can't fix stupid". You dear poster, are stupid. You don't know what you are talking about regarding the Jones family. Crawl back under the rock from whence you came.
Dear Ms. Jones, consider the source. Don't let a bully upset you. But thank you for the information. As one who has been the victim of an "adult" bully, I know that the only remedy is to stand up to her or him. And you did that beautifully. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I agree with Cinda Jones. If you are bold enough to write such a pointedly cruel post that was obviously meant to hurt a person and disparage not only their character - but that of their entire family - please have the courage and decency to sign your name.
ReplyDeleteIs this behavior what you would hold up to children as decent, fair and peaceful?
Well said Sarah Swartz.
ReplyDeleteThe people who get so defensive on these blogs, and decide to go ahead and battle an anon, (who for all we know are from Oregon or Latvia,) and then sign their names, make themselves seem incredibly non-savvy. They think they are going to look tough and non-cowardly, but it actually has a very different effect on the perceptions of the hundreds, if not thousands--and who knows how many into the deep future--who read their comments.
ReplyDeletecue one of Larry's derogatory comments regarding my anon status...
Wow! Having the courage of your convictions to take ownership of heartfelt comments in a public way is "non-savvy."
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true, deeply ingrained, Cowardly Anon Nitwit.
What is the difference between the government saying that Cinda Jones can't tear down a building because people wish to see it preserved and the government saying I must (indirectly) pay Cinda Jones not to build houses on Bushy Mountain because people wish to see it preserved?
ReplyDeleteHow is either any different from Hadley telling her, me, or anyone else that if we wish to build on property in that town, we must pay extra to have a pitched roof and siding on the building?
Are these not all equal interferences with property? Cinda's land, my money, anyone's land in Hadley?
There seems to be the misguided notion on this blog that property rights are some type of absolute. They are not. For example, you can't just dig a hole and dump carcinogens into it.
ReplyDeleteWhen governments tax people it is guaranteed that they will spend our tax dollars on something we don't approve of. It's the nature of the beast. The populace will never all agree on what the government should spend our money on. We all have different priorities. But there is no way around this fact - short of not having any government at all - which is just not feasible.
ReplyDeleteForget dumping carcinogens in a hole in the ground, try human waste....
ReplyDeleteNo, you simply can't have an outhouse in Massachusetts, and we won't even get into Title V and Septic Tanks.
But what do you think Ms. Emily had? Yep, she had to have an outhouse because that is what everyone had before flush toilets. And it somehow managed not to destroy the planet.
But now, folks would freak...
There are times and places to take ownership of your "heartfelt comments". Some are unwise. Like, for example, if you you do it everyday of your short, precious life, on the internet. That would be "un-savvy".
ReplyDeleteBut some, simply, can't be taught.
Post Script:
ReplyDeleteIt appears Real Estate Agent Jim Lumley will make up a guess and a popular namesake in order to generate more attention for a house sale.
I asked Jim Lumley what is the history of this house he listed as “The WD Cowls Manor House.” Lumley wrote:
“When I listed 237 Meadow it was a difficult time for your family, and understandable that your mother and I were not able to have a dialog (I emailed) about the property's history. I talked to Jerry and he really didn't know. It does seem that WD Cowls (Jerry's and your great, great grandfather?) did own the land and that the house was in existence. Hard to pin down a date range. And harder still to say who lived in any particular house. Clearly the front section to the south is a Greek Revival commonly built in the 1830s. The hand-hewn beams in the basement seem to confirm. However the second floor and attic areas are alleged to have been damaged by fire and rebuilt probably in the early part of last century. Are you sure your family never lived there?”
I asked Jim Lumley to please come on LK’s blog site and correct the record to say that his real estate listing was based on a guess and that it absolutely may not have been a WD Cowls house. My mom says she told him it was not.
Lumley first said he would and then he didn’t so here is the correction:
I paid historian James Avery Smith to do the real research and this is what he concluded:
“I have reviewed the ownership of the Drozdal lot at 237 Meadow Street in Amherst. Agnes Drozdal, the recent owner, acquired the lot from Martin Drozdal, who in turn purchased it from Albert R. Cowls in 1912. This tract was part of land sold by Ransom Cowls in 1912. This tract was part of land sold by Ransom Cowls in 1895 to Francis I Cowls and said Albert R. Cowls. On 10 Dec 1844 Jonathan Cowls sold the parcel to Ransom Cowls as part of a large acreage lot. As you can see there was no Walter D. Cowls nor WD Cowls involved in the title chain of this lot. At one time Walter Dickinson Cowls did own a lot to the west of this lot, but not this subject Drozdal lot.
For three hundred years there have been a lot of Cowls near and distant relatives who owned houses. Hopefully Jim Lumley won’t attribute them all to my family business nor its namesake in the future when he wants to draw attention to houses for sale.