[at-l] Informal poll - fate of Scott Farm

[wdaniels@bestweb.net (Walter Daniels)]

>
> If you don't mess with the asbestos, my understanding is that it doesn't
> pose a threat.  I'd leave the farm.  Exactly where is it?  It sounds as
> though it's serving several purposes well.  Why mess with success?  We
> probably can't afford to build anything better in its place.  If it ain't
> broke.......   anklebear
>
It doesn't have an asbestos problem. I believe those problems were fixed
that last time work was done on the place. It does have a lead paint problem
which will cost a lot to fix or get rid of. Fixing or destroying is not
optional. Put bluntly, destroy is the default unless people justify
retaining.

Yes it does currently serve some uses, but they are an ongoing expense so
they need to be careful measured and compared with possibly cheaper ways of
providing the same or other services at a cheaper cost elsewhere or raising
the value of the services that are provided, etc. In other words, this is
almost purely an economic issue, not a social issue unless you can quantify
the social issues in economic terms. For example, the ridgerunner training
course is run once a year for a week. Clearly it is cheaper to rent
facilities elsewhere for that week than to maintain a facility for the full
year because you need it for a week. On the otherhand if someone proposed 52
such one week programs that were as valuable from an AT management
perspective as the ridgerunnner training, then maintaining the facility
becomes more attractive.