"And yes, "if Janesville tax dollars paid for it, why do they have to pay to see it" is a good point."

Janesville needs to get over entitlement. Things cost money to see.
That $8 will not cover EVERYTHING.
Rotary Gardens tried to do it w/o a fee. It just doesn't add up.
We spend enough on popcorn at the movies- why do we have to pay to see the movie??? BECAUSE - that is why.

Sigma- lights- heat. Do you know it is way over $3000 a month to heat that place to about 55 degrees I think they said.
Some of the staff gets paid too- DUH.
I wonder what their property taxes are???

Tough situation.
The City does own it, so has the responsibility to maintain it.
But those costs do seem high.
I would also like to see an accounting of spending verses income over the complete time that the city has owned it.
And yes, "if Janesville tax dollars paid for it, why do they have to pay to see it" is a good point.
And like one recent new Fire Department building the the city built, I wonder if it will be Union or non Union contractors doing the work ???? Just saying.....

sigma 40. my point was the city did prioatize and the tallman house suffered. New sewers were hooked up, roads paved (G.M.) It wasn't good timing for the restoration concidering the economic climate but hey, the Tallman house would be in dire straights if it were put off until the economics turned around. I'm not critizing , I'm observing?

paperboy- Im curious about that also, what maintenance has been done for the past 60 years? Where does the money that is generated form the tours go to? Was the maintenance guy at Kennedy school in charge of this as well?

Someday things will be better. We still have to do what we have to do when things are not so good. If we sell our grandfather's watch we will never have it again. If you rid yourself of everything that costs you money you will have nothing. Once something is gone it is gone. It is hard for me to think of people wanting to live in Janesville if all of the little charm Janesville has left is gone.

Is it right to spend it on the ice arena?
"the I don't use it" agrument doesn't work.
I get rid of my own trash. I don't want to pay the $10 plus $10 for two water meters either!
But it doesn't work that way.

maybe if there was a mantenance program that was followed the past sixty years it was in the citys possesion it wouldn't have had to have such a major overhaul. what was done when times were good? now that everyone is pinching pennies some don't want to spend any funds on this historic building (or anything else ) Where were these critics in the past?

History is certainly important, but HOW important? Survival rates first, right? I'm not going to hold on to the old watch my grandpa gave me if I can buy water to live with it. Will these buildings be lost forever if repairs are not made? Are there are inexpensive temporary alternatives? What cost advantage is there for taking on this debt burden right now during this depression? (Yes, depression, I'll say it, but feel free to switch the 'd' with an 'r'.) Of course the significance to historical importance is reason for saving this heritage and possible income asset. Ownership and taxes are benefits from being city owned, but this high-cost maintenance should be deferred to an organization interested in the authenticity. Another thing; can we capitolise on this more and bring it into public view to increase the revenue? And who gets this possible profit? City and parties with vested interest such as one that could handle the maintenance and repair issues, perhps? Fundraising events have done wonders for such reasons I hear. This way those able to help pay can, and noone is using the money of those who cannot in a forced and undesired way. This is my logic, although I do prefer to see the RCHS be funded a little better through any means.

I think that it is misguided to use tax dollars for pet projects under the guise of economic development.

If its such a big hit, the admission prices they charge and the lines and swarms of people coming to see it should fund it. And the tax payers shouldnt have to pay anything.
=
If I donate my house to the City, will tax payers make all the repairs to it and maintain it? Its old. - Point is, History is not a necessity and it certainly is not a service, and tax payers should not have to pay for it.
-
I agree it should be preserved and taken care of, but it should be done by all those concerned about it.. not the tax payers when they have no choice. That is taking advantage of them.

No benefit of tax dollars spent on the Tallman House? Really? Take a trip to Galena IL, wading through the parked Cadillacs, Lexus, BMW's and Mercedes and tell me that architecture and historically significant structures can't be a massive draw to tourism.

Maybe WE should get in FREE

I have lived in the city of janesville since 2001. I wouldn't know the Tallman house if I ran into it. That being said, I have read and seen enough about it to think it deserves restoration. When we forget about our past, we have lost our future.

The City of Janesville funds this facility because it is owned by the city. It was donated to the city in the 1950's by the Tallman family because of its historical significance and its unique construction. It would cost over $3 million to replace or duplicate and it should be regarded as a city gem and drawing card for people to visit our city. We cannot be so narrow minded and allow this property to fall apart. The Rock County Histroical Society merely runs the property and does the general maintenance. Without them, and their many volunteers, the city would need to supply the staff. Lastly, we have a responsibility to maintain our old buildings: Grahm Shankland once stated "A city without old buildings is like a man without a memory". We need to embrace this grand old structure!

NO! It is 100% wrong !

A city wide vote should take place to see if residents want to continue to fund it. I have seen it one time and do not think it is worth the continued taxpayer money.

Where can we vote on this at?

Unlike the Tallman house, if I wanted to use the streets, ball parks, parks, I dont have to pay additional fees. Streets are a necessity by the way. Parks provide for the whole community and a lot more people use them than the Tallman house. If they open the Tallman house like they do public parks for public use I would have no problem funding the Tallman house... but they dont do they.

Sigma-40 People who do not drive cars pay for streets. Those who do not go to the parks pay for them, The ball fields, and a lot of other places that are supported by your tax dollars. I will be visiting Janesville in December and I will be sure to use as many of the things you pay for and it will not cost me a penny. I will be getting a lot of joy from your money. Hee, hee, hee.

NO. It serves no purpose for the tax payers. If it generated money to raise money for the city to lessen my tax payments then yes. But preservation of ones private home taken over by a city govt should be a private project and not funded by the entire city. That is called taking advantage of the tax payers and their money. Tax dollars should be used for ONLY maintaining the city, its amenities, and its services to the people that pay the taxes. The Tallman house does nothing for me or any of the tax payers. If I wanted to take a tour I would still have to pay the admission fee of $8. Why so when my tax dollars fund the thing??? Im being ripped off.

No

Yes the CITY ownes it!