 However, the District Court dismissed Metro’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, because none of the Department’s responses to Iron Quarter’s requests were final decisions that were appealable.  Following this agreement, the Preservation Community was outraged at the circumvention of the law, and several groups, including the owner of the property adjacent to the one sought to be demolished filed a motion to intervene in the Iron Quarter’s lawsuit against the city, which the judge granted. After the preservation groups were allowed to intervene in the lawsuit, the city, investors and Todd Blue managed to negotiate a new settlement that would not involve demolishing the entire historic block. The settlement provides that an investment group headed by Steve Wilson and Laura Lee Brown would purchase 5 of the 7 buildings for $4.85 million dollars, and the city promised to provide the group a $1.5 million dollar grant to help stabilize and preserve the buildings. However, the two easternmost building of Whiskey Row were determined to be too deteriorated to preserve, and Blue plans on demolishing the buildings and to put a temporary parking lot in their place.  Another concession that Blue received that was not an “official” part of the settlement agreement, was permission to tear down a different historic building, known as the “Elmo” building on Main Street. 

Both of these cases resulted in protracted legal disputes, cost taxpayers and the homeowner’s large sums of money, and neither resulted in total victory or defeat for any of the parties involved.  The problems faced in both of these cases highlight many of the nuances behind the issue of demolition by neglect. The first, is the often times arbitrary enforcement and settlement of these development issues by the Metro Government, which makes it difficult for developers to access risks when purchasing a historic property, and leads to a public perception of the unfairness of the whole process. In both case studies, the developers were blatantly disregarding the law by letting their properties fall into disrepair, but Faris was ordered to give his property away, even though he fully complied with the permit process requesting a demolition, and lost his business as a result of his legal troubles. In contrast Blue received almost $5 million dollars for his properties, despite not complying with proper demolition procedure, and he got approval to demolish another historic building, and received no jail time for breaking the law. The differences between the criminal and procedural outcomes of these two cases, seems to highlight how much money and political clout can affect, and even circumvent the law regarding historic preservation. This only serves to not only undermine the legitimacy of the government and its ability to enforce the law, but it also undermines the Preservation movement as a whole. In either of these situations, preservationists can easily be painted as the “bad guys” as either an obstructionist force determined to preserve an unimportant building at the expenses of a legitimate small business owner, or as a government entity devoid of any meaningful power to stop property owners from destroying historically important structures. 