Only maybe, and assuming that the properties didn't already belong to the city anyhow. Often a city will purchase property to be able to eat the costs for new businesses moving in. However, the back drop is empty, so this wasn't a popular location. If the city couldn't get someone to rent without modernization, then the result was fair for property that was likely built out of the way when the city was growing since op said they were a little older and the population was stagnate.

I'm not arguing the road was a good call, I'm just saying keeping the buildings may not have been either. Another use would have been smarter, heck, even a solar farm given the open area to provide energy for the local community if the state government hasn't banned it like some.

It would been wonderful if they could've at least used the parking lot to host a farmers market.

You'd be amazed on the cost to refurbish even moderately older buildings. The last time I was looking at one it was $3 million for the plumbing alone in one building from the 1940's to be able to support CRAC units without risking soil in the lines.

You also have a vastly different culture. With that said, I'm pretty sure the US is in the top 20 in the world for number of UNESCO sites. I guess it's not number one, but I'll sleep with that.

Even completely blind guessing, over even a 5 year gap, I'll bet the price of tearing them down was less than half the costs to the local community as keeping them and adding enough incentives to make businesses actually move in.

They could've totally used the space differently after, but tearing down was very likely the smart call.

If the road is a state route, the construction costs may even have been moved to the state tax budget and significantly save the local community money. The year on year costs wouldn't even be a fair fight at that point. They may have even made the road expansion as an intentional call to leverage the state tax burden to alleviate local tax burdens. Not knowing the area, I'm not gonna judge the call.

Old buildings like that can have massive maintenance, repair, and sustained costs while also being undesirable for businesses for a lack of modern infrastructure. Given the field behind them, these weren't central to the town and likely a good call to tear down.

How the space was used after that's a different discussion.

1/3 will need to justify their presence in writing or be removed.

According to Google, Bofa is slang for "both of." I'm guessing it's more of a play on both twins being exercised.

Isn't there a second song where Johnny loses his soul because of the arrogance?

Why erase the reply?

I'm sure they've got parking spots far enough of that no one will complain. I've been to 5 Ikea's, none have had full lots. This seems like a call to attention and drama. (Not sure on whose part.)

I guess this would depend on if C++ has multiple personality disorder.

That's a strong pointer finger

Wasn't it in the history of the Russian sniper from that time?

Also, 1 gun per 2-3 man squad. You were to pick up the rifle of the person in front when they died.

Maybe add links to data sources and separate items that are objectively negative from those that someone may prefer? (i.e., reliability being low is always bad, left or right leaning being bad is based on individual perspectives.

Don't forget Valentine's day.

Now let's look at holidays 40 weeks prior...

Nice

Economy of scale matters, so does practicality. Which one is generally lasting longer per number of charges and what's the long term viability of both given the time they were build and the available tech at that time? I totally understand the greater availability of sodium vs lithium. However, will it last? Last time I read much about it, reliability was weak, charge capacity over time dropped drastically, and failures were high. (It has been a couple of years, so things may be changing. )

Something new and shiney can be nifty, but past that, what is this? It seems like an expensive hood ornament that will rust in the rain. Lithium is expensive and toxic to mine, but so are all metals to some extent, and this has plenty.

It seems like it's buying something 25% off on a $100 thing that won't last well. Sure, you saved $25 once, but you're buying 3 of them in the same time frame.

Doesn't California have some insane battery too?