Analysis of City Council Designation District Hearing December 3, 2008

15 People spoke, 14 addressed preservation concerns in 3 categories:

1. 5 (35.7 percent) Historic Homeowners “Concerned for the Future of the City”
2. (35.7 percent) Historic District Homeowners “Don’t tell Me What to Do”
3. 4 (28.5 percent) Large Landowners (3 speakers from 1 family and a developer who does not live here. Looking for “highest and best” profit to pass on

Considering categories I and II evenly divided, council was swayed by developer interests. The Council ignored their own Staff recommendation, Terracon recommendation and HPC recommendation.

The Council made no attempt to use any of the means available to them for a logical decision that would serve all citizens’ interest, and justify the large sum spent on the Terracon Study ($25,000) and the considerable time to train the HPC, not to mention 16 months of meetings and discussion to refine program, and going out for bids Oct. 1 for Consultant Contract, selection process, and then vote it down).

Options available but ignored were:

1. Enact only the Cemetery District for now, to include 3 Cemeteries. Be able to look for grant funding for much needed enhancements
2. Enact a smaller core district of willing property owners while seeking to educate others to join
3. Table for study
4. A combination

Instead, the council meandered around decision-making. The motion died for lack of a second, so no discussion could be had.

Later, some talked of placing the former preservation commission in some kind of advisory capacity under the ARB Board. It makes no sense to place a trained preservation board under an untrained ARB board with a different mission. To be effective, the preservation commissioners have to follow the state preservation law that lays out a mandated process. The PDC supposedly had the HPC Ordinance as one of their Goals that year, but none spoke out if favor.