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.

This is funny, so I’m leaving my mistake

The command structure is what determines separate forces, do the Chechen forces answer to the same command structures? I know from US coalition operations that the foreign forces answer to their own NCO/Officer Corp. Typically, through to the region level and have their own rules and regulations separate from the other nation forces, often operating from their own bases and really only coordinating at the colonel level or above.

To my understanding, the Chechen forces are barely allowed their own officers at the unit level, much less anything higher. I’m far from an expert on that, though, and may be wrong. If true, I wouldn’t separate them, if false, maybe, as much as the separation of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Wagner was moved under the Russian regular military after the failed coop. So they’re technically one entity now. (Not that there was ever much of a difference, it’s just less now. )

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.