City government should not bail out the Graduate Hotel for their own lack of planning
We should not corrupt the historic designation process to provide corporate welfare to a business that lacks the ability to plan ahead.
This is an open letter to the Bloomington Historic Preservation Commission.
Commission members,
I am writing to oppose historic designation for the Graduate Hotel. Kirkwood itself is indeed historic and very important to the history of Bloomington, but the Graduate Hotel is only six years old. A six year old building does not qualify as "historic" under any definition of the word.
We all know why this is being done, and they admitted it in the Indiana Daily Student: Designating a six year old building as "historic" would allow them to sell alcohol. Under Indiana law, a business is not permitted to sell alcohol within a certain distance of a church unless that church gives permission. The First United Methodist Church did not sign off on selling alcohol.
Many people dislike the "blue laws" in our state, and I am one of them. The ban on selling alcohol should be repealed, along with the rest of the vestiges of Prohibition. It would be better to respect the private property rights of business owners and allow them to do business as they see fit. The owners of the Graduate Hotel should be the ones making this decision, not the state legislature.
But whether you agree with the "blue laws" or not, the law is the law. The Graduate Hotel knew what the law was before they even started planning the hotel. They should have secured an agreement with the UMC before the first square inch of dirt was moved to construct the building. Preparing for the eventual needs of your business is basic professionalism, and city government should not reward a business that cannot be bothered to make the necessary plans for their business model. The Graduate Hotel's lack of planning is not a justification for corrupting the historic designation process.
And this would be a corruption of the process. Designating a six year old building as "historic" as an end run around state alcohol laws makes a mockery of historic designation status and shows disrespect for the rule of law. The arguments about economic benefit or the historic status of Kirkwood itself are irrelevant to what everyone knows: A six-year old building is not "historic" and it is utterly absurd to pretend otherwise. City government should not reward dishonesty with special privileges.