tim coleman. we long ago endorsed this and support of this project. it is inappropriate use of the building and the land. the neighborhood is a perfect context for the proposal. it preserves a beautiful historical assets that we agree need preservation and adds a space for uses that enhance the neighborhood. as is often the case, we end up -- the housing is almost incidental. we argue about parking. when i was at the last hearing on this project, i said this was an under-a valued asset

tim coleman. we long ago endorsed this and support of this project. it is inappropriate use of the building and the land. the neighborhood is a perfect context for the proposal. it preserves a beautiful historical assets that we agree need preservation and adds a space for uses that enhance the neighborhood. as is often the case, we end up -- the housing is almost incidental. we argue about parking. when i was at the last hearing on this project, i said this was an under-a valued asset and that i would be nervous standing before you with there was a waiting list to get into the garage. it was turning away business and it was full all the time. as far as i can tell, that is not the case. i said the neighbors themselves don't value this asset. that is not to duplicate them. it is to say that, by objective economic measurement, it is not valued for its original use. like anywhere else, the people in this never would appear to be making rational economic decisions and availing themselves of the subsidized parking on the street. this parking inside this bu