Email from Bob Wilkerson, Norcross resident and member of the Downtown Development Authority Board

Date: February 26, 2008

A properly crafted Historic Preservation Ordinance could take care of the whole issue. But since that was defeated in Council recently, I would recommend the alternative suggested by one of the property owners, i.e., get as many of the owners of historic properties as possible to agree on an ordinance that they could live with and pass that into law. Deal with the hold-outs on a case-by-case basis as requests for demolition come in. Gather all the facts, understand the issues involved, debate the pros and cons, and issue a decision.

I can understand the attractiveness of establishing a rule that absolves the Council from having to make the hard decisions. That, however, is what we elected them to do. Each case has it's unique characteristics and should be decided on its merits. If we elect untrustworthy people to represent us, then shame on us, the voters.

Mr. Forro quite correctly points out the drawbacks of a 90-day moratorium and his experience with the College Street Lofts is a clear example of the difficulties in carrying out the tasks required to move or otherwise preserve a historic structure that may not be in very good condition. A much longer period might make that possible, but isn't the applicant entitled to a timely decision?

I think Mr. Allen's example of the Northern Star Coffee House somewhat misses the mark. In that case, the DDA was involved, there was a willing buyer for the business, and the community involvement of pledging money to support the operation was a fairly simple effort in that it did not involve the logistics of realty ownership or moving a building. Also, there was no issue of building demolition in that instance.

This is not an issue that has any simple answers. Let's not rush to put something in place that we will later regret.

Bob Wilkerson