It's great that the city is taking steps towards preserving its heritage, but what is it getting in exchange for restoring the sign? Shouldn't it be protected in some way other than the city getting ownership? Who is liable for the maintenance and operation of the sign? And why should the city pay to change what the sign says to "Pancakes & More?" If it's being restored, restore it - if the owner wants to alter it, he should be paying at least some of the cost. Rehabilitation is a legitimate use of TIF, but it should be carefully implemented.