In a message dated 12/11/2009 11:54:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

Just  because the building belongs to 
someone else? That's no  excuse.


While I applaud your ardor and business acumen, I'm thinking perhaps that  
some of your clients must be on Fantasy Island. The two projects that I had 
in  mind when I made the statement were both under-funded historic house 
museums in  two of the poorer neighborhoods in New York City that were able to 
get one  time grant funding to do beyond-necessary restoration work in order 
to keep  the buildings from reverting to a mulch state. we are an 
architectural firm, and  in spite of providing not only a maintenance plan, which we 
routinely do, and  also providing and annual walk-through to give them "the 
list", both groups were  so continually scraping the bottom line 
financially, that staff were  frequently deferring salary. 
 
Clearly, granting agencies should take a more holistic approach to handing  
out cash. But until such a time should we turn down projects from clients 
who  have a onetime windfall of grant money if we know they are not going to 
follow  up? No amount of good intention leads to work getting done if there 
are no  resources to finance it. 
 
At the NJ Statehouse I go back once a year, gratis, and inspect the work  
that was done. I can assure you that the contractors who worked on it have 
moved  on to something else. Each year I give them "the list" and each year 
they turn  around, acquire the funds, and do the work.This is gratifying, but 
this is an  exception.
 
Tw    

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>