05/30/2026
An editorial from the Pemiscot Journal, December 13, 1977 regarding the old Roberts house near the seawall. Citizens wanted to save the home from demolition for a possible museum or venue for weddings and occasions, but it was not to be.
"The haste with which Caruthersville Mayor B. F. Rogers is showing to destroy the historical Roberts home near the seawall is typical of several projects he has undertaken. Why would Mayor Rogers sneak this project through the city council with no previous notice? Why is he in such a hurry to get the old house torn down? Why did he try to keep the matter a secret from the taxpayers and residents of Caruthersville?
What will it hurt to wait a few days before tearing the house down? If the administration would give the community a few days to try to work up support for restoring the home, perhaps one of the few remaining landmarks in town could be saved. The people have not had a chance to save the house, which was built in 1900.
Mayor Rogers actually believes that he is the only person in town who can make a decision regarding city business. He has never accepted the face that he is elected by the people to represent them, not dictate to them. He is obligated to lay the facts of a problem out before the people before a decision is made. He has no right to make decisions without even the approval of the city council, as he often does.
The mayor said, regarding the purchase of the Roberts home, "I don't want 45 old women from the Historical Society up here complaining", so he kept the entire matter from the people of Caruthersville until he asked the council to pay $26,000 for the property.
Is the price of property, after the home has been torn down,, worth $26,000? Mayor Rogers told the council that the land was almost two acres large. We have been told that there is only a little over an acre in the area the city bought. If that is the case, the city paid almost $26,000 for a little over an acre of land, high even by big city prices.
The land is no good for retail development, nor is it desirable for residential development. So why would the mayor pay such a high price for an empty piece of land? (With the house the land is worth the $26,000. Without it, it is only a little over an acre of land and nothing more.)
"The city can save enough in rent and theft prevention to pay for this property in ten years," the mayor said. The city currently pays $125 a month for rent on the garage used the city equipment repair. Over a period of ten years, the saving in rent would add up to $15,000. That means the mayor expects $11,000 in thefts to pay for the perhaps $7,000 needed to fence the property and to build a maintenance building. The figures just don't work out the way he says they will.
We are not opposed to the city buying a piece of property and building its own maintenance shed. We have been in favor of that for years. We just don't feel things like this should be done in secret, and without enough planning to justify the move.
If you don't feel like the old Roberts Home should be torn down, act now. Call the mayor and your alderman today. If you wait, it will be too late.
(The Roberts house burned to the ground in a spectacular fire in early spring of 1978.)