Email from Jeff Allen, Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem

Date: February 25, 2008

Editorial note: The term "Demolition Delay" by Councilmember Allen appears to be a local permit process solution that is without a public hearing, without notification to affected adjacent property owners, without Council approval, and lacks any avenue for anyone to vote or say no. This process will allow for speculation and empty, vacant land. This process is not within the State of Georgia Historic Preservation law.

Dear Pierre (and other interested parties),

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing in response to your attached email concerning the Demolition Delay ordinance that I have proposed. I have to say that I am quite surprised that you have chosen a position in opposition to this ordinance. I don't remember you being in the audience when it was proposed, so perhaps you did not get the full story on the benefits of such an ordinance and how it protects historic properties here. I will attempt to convey that here. In the spirit of openness, I would also hope that you would forward this response on to your readers so that they get a balanced view of the process as it stands now and how I would like to change it for the better. I noticed you did not name me as "the councilman", but I have no problem being named in relation to this issue at I believe it is very important and everyone needs to be made aware of demolitions in Norcross.

The current demolition procedure in Norcross consists of nothing more than an applicant requesting a hearing before the council and the council voting. There are some other guidelines (ARB hearings) that should be followed, but the letter of the law does not hold the applicant to anything but a council vote. (Editorial note - Author is referring to local Norcross ordinance and not the Georgia State law for Historic Preservation.)

This would be especially true if the applicant only intended to demolish the structure and did not have any present intention of rebuilding. If the council decision is in favor of demolition, the decision is binding and demolition can be immediate. Immediate it pretty quick in my mind - and immediate doesn't favor preservation efforts. The entire time from application to demolition could be less than 10 days (if the applicant does not go through a policy work session). This is really really wrong and it gives the community no time at all to react and combine resources to save a structure destined for demolition. A recent example of the Norcross community working together to save something we all care about is the Northern Star Coffeehouse. Had Bill given only 10 days notice, we'd have no coffeehouse downtown. But private citizens took matters into their own hands - many putting large sums of money forward to save something that was important to the community. Demolition Delay would allow time for this same type of grassroots effort to work for preservation of historic properties.

I want to change the way we do things so that we give historic properties a chance (which is why I thought you'd agree with it). I didn't just dream up "demolition delay" on my own. I set out to find a path that was more in favor of preservation than what we have today. Demolition Delay ordinances were created by historic preservation groups in hundreds of this nation's oldest cities. Some well known large cities that use demolition delay are Chicago IL, Cambridge MA, Boston MA, Portland OR, and Urbana IL. Some examples of some smaller cities that have also adopted it are Windsor CT, Greenwich CT, Newton MA, Waltham MA, New Haven CT, Augusta ME, Lewiston ME, Cape Elizabeth ME, Woburn MA, and the list truly goes on and on and on.

The state of Maine had this to say about demolition delay: "Demolition delay regulations can be implemented as a stand-alone ordinance...such legislation can be a very effective tool in helping to protect historically significant resources in the community. While a demolition delay ordinance or bylaw cannot prevent demolitions indefinitely, delaying the demolition of a significant resource can often have a positive outcome."

The state of Connecticut had this to say: "A demolition delay ordinance is a tool that preservationists and municipalities can use to protect their communities historically and architecturally significant resources...this waiting period would allow interested parties to explore alternatives to demolition and provide "a window of opportunity for preservation"."

As for the "convenience" of this ordinance as it relates to the "cooks cabin", this ordinance would certainly hurt that property owner more than help. The applicant is not scheduled to come before the council again until April as you stated. But if this ordinance is passed in March, the applicant would be forced to delay his demolition for however many days the ordinance is written to be (90 days was just a proposal as I invited council recommendations to this and the entire ordinance - the delay could be much longer). So if I owned the property where the cabin sits today, I would look at this ordinance as anything but convenient.

You also seemed to feel it was a bad thing to remove the council from voting on future demolitions. It's no secret that I'm not one for wanting more power - in my mind, the only power that should be expressed in government is the power of the people. Leaving the council as the deciding body in demolition applications leaves room for the possibility of impropriety. While I firmly believe no one on our current council would not fall prey to such things, we never know what types of people will come after us. Removing the council from voting on demolition requests removes any bias for (or against) demolition. It eliminates any possibility of wrongdoing by a councilperson from voting based on anything other than the merits of the issue at hand (both now or forever going forward to future councils) . It puts the issue in the peoples' hands - where it belongs. It allows the community an opportunity to work with private land owners to save historic properties and removes the government from interfering (either for or against).

Lastly, there is the legal issue. As it stands today, we have no standard by which demolitions are granted, or as the case may be, denied. There is no "checklist" for an applicant to follow. The downside of this is that a denial of a demolition request leaves the city in a compromised position for a lawsuit by the property owner. Such a lawsuit would be costly to the taxpayers. Our city attorney has publicly agreed that we currently have a weak defense in such cases. Furthermore, should the city lose a legal challenge, the demolition would be carried out anyway. A demolition delay ordinance is a proven method to protect the taxpayers for the costs of such lawsuits. All of the council members took an oath when they took office. In my own mind, I would be violating my oath by not speaking up and moving to protect the city's assets and the people's tax dollars as this ordinance would.

I really hope you will reconsider your position in light of this information. Please don't hesitate to contact me with further questions.

Thanks so much for your time,

Jeff Allen
Mayor pro tem
Norcross, GA