[MissoulaGov] Planning Board on Tuesday

[Bill Schaff]

* I agree with Geoff and Joe on their comments.  I was born and raised in
Missoula and have seen many things come and go.  Many of the structures
built over time have been cheaply constructed and an eyesore at best.
However, there have been many other new structures built which I feel have
greatly improved the look of certain neighborhoods. How does a community
decide what it is suitable and what is not?  I guess we will sort it out
starting tonight, but I believe that the bulk of the creative decisions,
beyond what is mandated under current Zoning, should be left to the private
individuals putting forth the time, the energy, the risk, and the funding.
That is how it has been done historically in our town, and I see no
compelling reason to alter that.

Bill Schaff
*

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:42 AM, <Paradigm1 at aol.com> wrote:


>    *I agree with their comments as well. I strongly support the idea of

> historic preservation ... my architecture firm has won four awards for it,

> and we intend to win more. I just believe this Ordinance is like fishing

> with a giant net, Instead of a hook.*

> **

> **

> *Carl P.*

>

>  In a message dated 7/21/2009 9:33:04 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,

> janetdonahue at msn.com writes:

>

> I agree with the comments made by Geoff Badenoch and Joe Easton and am an

> owner of property in the University area that would be directly impacted by

> this ordinance.  I did not want this property placed on the historic

> register because one of the structures is *not *historic as I view it and

> one structure is an historic residence.  I believe this ordinance goes

> beyond what is reasonable.

>

> Janet Stevens Donahue

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------

> From: geoffb at ism.net

> To: Paradigm1 at aol.com; missoulagov at cmslists.com

> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:21:04 -0600

> CC: mayor at ci.missoula.mt.us; council at ci.missoula.mt.us

> Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Planning Board on Tuesday

>

>  I support historic preservation for all the reasons stated in the

> ordinance.  However, I encourage everyone to read this Ordinance and

> participate in discussions surrounding it.

>

>

>

> Among my concerns are the breadth of situations covered, the burden of new

> requirements on property owners, timeliness of processing approvals, and the

> subjective nature of the judgment required of the Historic Preservation

> Officer.  The current HPO, for example, is knowledgeable about historic

> structures but he is not immortal and will not be in the position forever.

> What about the next person?  What qualifications, sensitivities, creativity,

> and common sense will that person possess?  Whenever government tries to

> legislate subjective judgment into the law, it usually creates more problems

> than it solves.  It opens a legal Pandora’s Box in which the concept

> “arbitrary and capricious” can be spotted by any first year law student.

>

>

>

> I believe Missoula would benefit from a reasonable Historic Preservation

> ordinance.  I hope citizens will read the ordinance (link below) and judge

> for themselves if this is the way to go about it.

>

>

>

> Geoff Badenoch

>

> P*   **Please consider the environment before printing this email.** *

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090721/3f4a8bb8/attachment.htm>