Email from Robert Forro

Date:February 25, 2008

Mr. Forro is the developer of Col Jones Park and he is anticipated to be developer of Lillian Webb Field and Cemetery Street Lofts. Mr. Forro is not a resident of Norcross.

I think everyone agrees the historic character of Norcross is what sets this community apart from other near by places one can choose to live and that the historic character is what our struggling retail district currently depends on for bringing customers. It is of critical importance to maintain and save as many historic properties as possible.

However, it's not a simple task. Whom will be the governing authority to determine what is of historic merit and what accurate guidelines are to be adopted including an economic factor? What I mean by economic factor is that some historic structures by virtue of their locations may in fact have a much stronger economic benefit to the community than others simply because some buildings may be in more prominent publicly viewable locations.Saving historic structures is truly based on economics. As charming as these structures are, the main reason's for saving them is to protect the economic environment these structures represent to the community by the charm they convey to residents and visitors. A historic structure off the beaten path may mean less to the community economically than a structure in the town square. Additionally, labeling all structures historic isn't practical or fair to the property owners whom own them in most cases under the current market. If you own a property that a third party has classified as historic you may have just been issued a detriment to your individual properties value. Not only a detriment for what you might could sell if for, but also on what additional measures and expense forced upon you to do basic renovations or updating. If the property has development potential you may be harmed even more. To get a property owner to give up hard dollars in the name of historic preservation is an emotional and financial decision most property owners whom want the most out of their properties values aren't willing to sacrifice( particularly if they are moving out of the community).For every historic structure that is saved, it might bring a little increased value to all the remaining homeowners, but how do you compensate the home owner of that historic structure that may have to take a financial hit for the good of his neighbors? Is it fair to take money from the historic homeowners and effectively give it to the remaining homeowners whom may get the economic benefit of a saved historic structure?

Norcross hasn't achieved the financial returns for historic structures such as Charleston or Savannah simply because of lack of critical mass of historic structures worthy of attracting tourist. Charleston and Savannah very survival depends on tourist. Norcross on the other hand isn't truly a tourist destination as a viable economic engine( yet?). I think the historic structures are really a quality of life issue in creating a quaint , charming place to live full time( not just visit)Having grown up in Savannah myself, I watched great 2 and 3 hundred year old homes being tour down or converted into apartment houses over the years. These buildings were far more attractive and architecturally significant than the ones in Norcross. Yet even Savannah struggled for years on historic preservation incentives (tax free programs, grants, property tax reductions etc..). Basically, saving old houses requires money. Either the property owners have to put it up, or someone else does. The homes either have to be remodeled making them viable places to live, or they have to be relocated at a major cost .Are the property owners themselves willing to sacrifice the development potential ( lots of money)of their properties for the greater good of the community? All these cases involve lots of money.

If the city wants to fund the cost of saving old structures for the sake of its town and can verify the economic benefit to the tax payers then maybe the city can fund some of these historic measures. This is doubtful to me due to the political volatility in spending tax payers money on such controversial issues. So the only other way, is to build an incentive program for property owners to preserve their own properties or the historic preservation committee themselves raise the money or put the necessary time it takes to broker deals to save some of these structures. I know first hand of two older homes I had to demolish for my project on College Street that much dialogue came from the historic preservation people on how important it was to save these homes.However, very little was done other than to talk about it. I offered these homes for over 2 years to anyone that would come and get them.Very little work was put into finding a match with someone to take them.It was not economically viable to move the homes in the current market and the issue of no available land cheap enough was available to move them to and the historic people did not have the money or the desire to raise the money to save these.

If the historic preservation people are serious about saving old structures, they need to get serious about finding funding sources to do so rather than pass that burden to the property owners themselves. If this burden is put on the property owners, the exact opposite may happen to the home values.The historic guidelines will hinder property owners financially from their rights to use, fix up or sale their properties in the future and hence reduce the number of potential buyers which in turn may reduce the ultimate value of the property. I've noticed Savannah and Charleston have been going though recent revivals. I personally think their apparent success has been a good mix of preserving old structures and allowing economic redevelopment at the same time. Unless Norcross can stay with the times in terms of quality of shopping, transportation, public buildings, and new updated housing, saving old houses is pointless. Continual redevelopment is as important to saving old Norcross as the older structures themselves. You simply can't have one without the other. In other words, if the expected quality of life issues, good schools, modern conveniences and housing( historically themed houses) well kept and economically viable downtown, good roads, low crime.are not continually updated the people won't be there to live in all these great old houses.

In regards to the proposal to delay sellers closing's for three months seems pointless and potentially damaging to sellers. Three months is not enough time to coordinate a house relocation. It would take several months to bid the job, find a lot,find a lender that would do such a unique real estate financing maneuver etc. The other concept of forcing a seller to offer a first right of refusal to some unknown third party is unheard of. To put the burden of a potential buyer trying to negotiate his best deal to purchase a property with an unknown third parties right of first refusal ,will most definitely hinder both the seller from getting his highest value and the buyers ability to get the best price( not even sure if this is legal to make a property owner offer a first right of refusal to an unknown third party). If someone is going to tag certain homes with " historic significance", the property owner deserves the right of as much time as possible to deal with the consequences of this label. Forcing the issue at the point of sale is way too risky.

I don't mean to overload the issues with a lot of words myself, so I offer the following suggestions to the preservation people to find some possible remedies while they still have time.

1. Do research of other successful historic communities as to what fair methods have been used successfully in achieving preservation.
2. Preservation people raise funds to further their cause.
1. Have fund raisers
2. Get developers to donate articles for sale from historic structures that may have to be demolished
3. Get the city to offer financial incentives to homeowners for historic preservation measures. Reduce taxes, offer matching grants, offer free architectural advice and appraisal services to demonstrate the value of good preservation to homeowners etc.
4. Get the city to provide developed lots somewhere convenient as a possible donor site for homes worthy of being moved. Then the city can sell the relocated houses to recoup their expenses. If the city can't do this, they would help coordinate private means to do so.
5. Develop a relationship with a preferred house mover now, that would be willing to cooperate with the city on house moving issues. This is a very complicated procedure and logistics could be worked out now rather than dealing with it at the last minute.

Robert Forro