(Ed. Note: This comment was made to a previous post on Historical Preservation. I have posted it separately for better visibility. Stricter enforcement provisions will be a matter of public hearing shortly. Stay tuned.)
Dear Observer,
It's disingenuous of you to take potshots at historic preservation efforts that most communities nationwide with historic districts have found to be economically highly beneficial. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has plenty of documentation to demonstrate this. Furthermore, resorting to petty attempts at humor in making inaccurate comments about preserving bathrooms, which by the way, as interior building components are not at all affected by proposed local ordinance, and would be minimally or not at all affected in requirements for voluntarily recieving public funding and tax breaks, does little to bolster the credibility of your argument.
The Evansville Historic District has suffered significant damage to it's original building stock in the 29 years of this very flawed 'voluntary ordinance'. Consulting, as you put it, has not worked well at all in preserving the integrity of many buildings which were in good original condition and contributing to the integrity of the building stock as a whole and then 'voluntarily' rumuddled and 'improved'to the point of having their original historic integrity largely destroyed. If you want proof I'll be happy to drive you around the district and show you.
The overwhelming majority of historic districts in Wisconsin have ordinances with enforcement provisions overseen by preservation boards that work just like any other zoning ordinances undertaken for the public good, and while not without periodic contention, have worked much better in preserving those districts and consequently improving, not impairing, property values. The attitude of "nobody can tell me what to do with my house" is fair enough if you don't live in an place that's a nationally recognized historic asset, or don't want to, regardless of it's demonstrable cultural and economic value. I think on a fair consideration though, most people here place a high value on our historic district and at this point in time will hopefully support efforts to improve it.
Sincerly
Jim McGoey
The Evansville Observer Archive: The unofficial history of Evansville, Wisconsin from 2005-2013: Thousands of Video and Audio and Articles; Free: To Search scroll to the Search this Blog line and enter name of person, topic, or issue. Then scroll up to see all articles. Or use Google Search by topic. Enjoy.
I'm not certain many people would disagree with Mr. McGoey that well kept neighborhoods are desirable regardless of the age of the homes. I think the debate comes in at How to accomplish this?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem this administration chooses to use a big stick. I think it is a fair comparison that design standards and strict codes are little more than unfunded mandates, which I do believe most people find unfair.
I believe Mr. McGoey on his observations over the last 29 years. However in the nearly 10 years that I have been living in the historic district (by happenstance), there has been significant home improvement in the area. All without strict enforcement codes.
It is my strong belief that a little encouragement gets better results than a lot of enforcement any day!
Mr. Observer,
ReplyDeleteI really like Mr. McGoey's suggestion that he take you on a tour and show you what he has seen over the years - where historic preservation has made a significant impact or where remodeling has hurt the effort of historic preservation. We will all be better informed via the tour if you publish it and it will make for a more informed dialogue when new ordinances are debated.
Mr. McGoey----
ReplyDeleteIt is an awkward position I am in...arguing that you have done a wonderful job over the past ten years in historic position.... and your position that there has been a terrible loss....and a failure that necessitates more restrictive ordinances
However, in deference to the blogger suggestion, I would be willing to tour properties with you and video them----with your commentary to share with the entire community. Then I will review with the owners of those properties whether the terrible loss of historical asset is real or imagined. The homeowners will be allowed to speak.
The public has a interest in understanding what you are specifically speaking of and this might be a way to showing it on video.
Let me know a time that is convenient.
The Observer
How refreshing it would be if elected officials were requested to be as informed for voting as the Observer is asked to be for commenting.
ReplyDeleteAfter consulting with Mr. McGoey, we have agreed that example of the restrooms of the Night Owl was a case of Observer exaggeration. These restrooms could be remodelled at any time. Some of my readers have been curious what would happen to the restrooms. Relax.
ReplyDeleteThe second item we may agree on is that the details in the ordinance, which have not been fully shared, is the key thing---and that full public airing is proper. The Observer post was intended to alert folks that teeth may be coming, and those teeth may have consequences that are harmful and unintended. I cannot say for sure. I only get to ask the questions.
The Observer