Imagine an aspiring model who enrolls in a class that teaches her poise. She enlists the help of professional makeup artists and beauticians. Additionally, she works with a professional photographer who works with other models.
She does all of this, of course, because she is trying to look her absolute best, present her absolute best. In short, she wants to stand out among her peers in the industry. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Now imagine that same model being advised by both the photographer and the beauty consultant that a slight modification of her nose to remove a sizable mole would make all the difference in the world. A little minor surgery and she’d be good to go. Just as she is set to have to mole removed, however, the model is told she cannot have the surgery -- at least not without first having to model a good many years with the mole in place and not without filing all sorts of paperwork with modeling associations and jumping through all their rules and regulation hoops.
That would seem to put her at a disadvantage, wouldn’t it? It would seem unfair. Here she is, a beautiful model in her own right who also wants to make improvements, but cannot. It’s all about the presentation.

The same is true of municipalities. And counties. Look at the city of Greenwood and all it has done thus far in making significant improvements. Buildings have been renovated, new lighting and sidewalks have been installed and a host of other face lifts have taken place and are slated to take place still. But then the city runs into a roadblock. Buildings that have become dilapidated through years of neglect are to the city what that mole on her nose was to the aspiring model.
The city has had to wait quite a few years before it could finally move forward on having a handful of such structures demolished. For years, the city tried to track down the owners, who were a further drain on the city because they were not paying property taxes owed. In short, the city had its own set of hoops to jump through, its own rules and regs to abide by before it could move forward on removing these blights on the landscape. Finally, however, the city is about to do just that.
Unfortunately, demolition comes with a price tag the city must pay since it is obvious the property owners are not going to take responsibility. Still, the expenditure of nearly $20,000 to remove the eyesores is worth the cost. The falling and vacant buildings are more than eyesores. They are potential hazards. Empty buildings are often prime targets for arsonists. They are often used by drug dealers and buyers. And there is the health risk empty buildings pose, especially if they are being used by homeless people.
We are glad the city can finally remove these buildings, but wish there were a more expedient route it could take to do so. A drive around the county makes us wonder if the same should be done in a few places. There certainly exist a number of unsightly and dilapidated buildings and yards here and there.
It’s all about the presentation. And it’s all about taking pride in ourselves and where we live.