This story was very poorly reported. This story attempts to portray the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board in a negative light, as the local media always seems to do. The report left out much information; namely that the SLPB ONLY bases their decisions on criteria set forth in a city zoning ordinance. These are the same criteria used by the United States Secretary of Interior. They are not allowed to take economic factors into consideration - this is specifically stated in the ordinance. The Board did NOT state that the building should not be demolished. They merely stated that it meets criteria contained within a city zoning ordinance, which is their duty. Secondly, they are not a bunch of elitist zealots that have no concern for impact caused by deteriorated properties, whether historic in nature or not. Thirdly, why was there no mention of the owner of this building and why he allowed it to deteriorate to its present condition?

By the way, concerning the previously posted comment concerning the Ronald McDonald House; yes, this is the same Board and they use the same criteria and the media did an extremely poor job of getting all the FACTS with respect to that whole scenario. Also, if anyone had seen the house that was demolished at that site, it was not even CLOSE to the condition of 133 South Ave. In fact, if every vacant, dilapidated house in the city looked like the house that once stood at 1100 E. Genesee St., the city of Syracuse would not have a problem with vacant houses!

When is the media going to start presenting all of the facts as well as balanced, informative reports, rather than sparse, theatrical video clips such as this, along with barely a paragraph that gives no background at all? Instead, the media perpetuates poorly done segments and articles which allows the public to continue to speculate and come up with their own misconceptions.

Is this the same group that decided it was OK to tear down the "historical" house on Genesee St to make way for a new Ronald McDonald House?