It's unfortunate that the Butler Redevelopment Authority's purchase of the former Wishing Well card shop building last November has evolved into an embarrassment. The site would have been a visible location for the authority in the middle of the downtown business district.

Although the authority might have grounds for considering legal action against the building's former owner for not fully disclosing the structure's defects, the authority must share in the responsibility for its current predicament. Prior to buying the building, the authority had the right - indeed, the responsibility, considering that it operates with public money - to have the building fully evaluated. Obviously, it didn't.

From the start, it was no secret that the building once housed one of Butler's original movie theaters, and that its design as a theater presented architectural challenges that would not have existed if the building had been built initially for office or retail purposes.

The fact that real estate inspectors had noticed dampness in the basement should have been a signal for the authority, prior to agreeing to buy the building, to have an extensive inspection of the structure carried out, hopefully under varying weather scenarios.

The building is not located in one of the low-lying parts of the city, such as those areas that experienced flooding last week from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. The fact that significant dampness was detected at the time the authority was considering the purchase should have been a "red flag" for the authority to call upon additional expert opinion.

Instead, the authority doled out $82,500 for the building, embarked on a renovation project, and now has found, based upon subsequent inspections conducted by its engineer, that the basement and west end of the structure have serious leaks responsible for extensive structural damage. The authority's engineer also has determined that the roof needs to be replaced.

The price tag for making the building dry and safe has been estimated at $200,000, while another $600,000 to $1 million would be required to complete the renovation.

Instead of such outlays, the authority has opted to cut its loss by incurring just the additional cost of $40,000 to $45,000 to have the building razed. But when that is completed, the authority will have spent about $122,500 - minus the legal costs incurred in the real estate transaction and the costs for work on the building done to date - with the result being just a parcel of vacant land.

Granted, that loss can be cut with the sale of the land, or if the authority is successful in legal action, should it opt for that course. However, the authority has more important business than spending an inordinate amount of time on a bad investment that should have been recognized before the authority signed purchase documents..

Perry O'Malley, the authority's interim director, says the agency isn't in a hurry to sell the land.

"Comprehensive planning of the city's future is going on . . . and we can wait and see what the city needs at that corner instead of running out and selling to the first offer," he said. Preferably, what the city needs is a taxable piece of land with a taxable business enterprise, either retail or professional, to help the city's struggling fiscal coffers.

The authority's role as owner of vacant land at the 150 S. Main St. site would not accomplish that.

A successful project at the Wishing Well location would have helped the appearance of the downtown. The authority can be lauded for its good intentions.

However, in this instance, good intentions, minus the full range of professional advice that should have been mobilized on the agency's behalf, have done nothing for the authority and its operations.

It is an embarrassment that the authority overlooked basic protections that an agency of its kind should have known not to bypass. The goal ahead must be to fix the mistake.

- J.R.K.