[MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

Thanks Steve... I'd be happy to meet with you and review the  specifics... 
 
 
In a message dated 6/12/2009 10:00:59 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
adler at bigsky.net writes:

Carl,
 
"Sieze control"? . . . "Freeze them in time"? . . . "Limit thought and  
expression"?
 
Though your concerns have a kernel of validity, I believe your  expression 
of them belies fear and is extreme and alarmist.  No offense,  but that's 
the last thing any public process needs.  If you would like to  sit down some 
time for general discussion or to go over the ordinance,  I'd be happy to do 
that with you.  Or if you'd like to meet with the  commission, we can do 
that at a meeting.  Please feel free to let me know  if you'd like to follow 
up.
 
As for some of the particulars, of which you may already be aware:
 
Preservation ethic and the Secretary of the Interior Standards do not  
condone societal "freezing in time".  They encourage primarily  1)restoration 
and adaptive re-use of existing structures, and 2)  compatibility of new 
structures with an historic context.  The  reality is that Missoula is a living, 
breathing community.  Even we  "preservation Nazis" know that any attempt to 
"freeze things in time" is  suicide.  Not only that, but it would keep any 
more history from  happening - kind of antithetical . . . (and in a very 
practical and legal  sense, it's virtually impossible to achieve).
 
"Limiting thought and expression" is a constitutional issue  that is way to 
broad to discuss in one e-mail.  
 
But to take a general-attitude approach:  based primarily on  the public 
health safety and welfare, the "government" already has a raft of  regulations 
(i.e. building codes, zoning, subdivision regulations, etc) which  may be 
considered "restrictive".  In this case, I think what you consider  the 
"government" is really going to be the "People of Missoula".  This  ordinance 
will be going through a standard, open, local public process,  in which 
everybody gets to be heard, if they so choose. Historic  Preservation is not a 
mandated plank of the workings of society.   Essentially, it is optional.  But 
if enough people value the  historical context of their environment and find 
the ordinance a fair  exchange of "protections upon what they value" for 
"restrictions", they  can chose to impose those "restrictions" upon themselves. 
 
 
I know we won't all agree, but I would certainly welcome more open and  
thoughtful discussion of the matter.
 
If you got this far , thanks for your time and attention.
 
Steve Adler
 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Paradigm1 at aol.com_ (mailto:Paradigm1 at aol.com)  
To: _western at montana.com_ (mailto:western at montana.com)  ; 
_ryan at buildmissoula.com_ (mailto:ryan at buildmissoula.com)  ; _missoulagov at cmslists.com_ 
(mailto:missoulagov at cmslists.com)  
Cc: _newsdesk at missoulian.com_ (mailto:newsdesk at missoulian.com)  
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:29  AM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] committee  update 6-10-09


So.... a simple question. Is inclusion optional... or is the  City of 
Missoula using this proposed ordinance to essentially seize control  of these 
3500 properties? Freeze them in time, and limit architectural  thought and 
artistic expression to ideas the Government feels are  "appropriate"?
 
Carl P.
 
 
In a message dated 6/11/2009 9:21:35 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
_western at montana.com_ (mailto:western at montana.com)  writes:

There is some confusion on this discussion  that needs to be addressed, I 
want to address what I feel is probably one  of the more recurring themes 
that needs clarification.  The National  Historic Preservation Act of 1966 
allows private property owners to  decline listing as a historic resource.  
Historic private property  that is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places or eligible for  listing on the National Register occurs only with the 
consent of the  private property owner.  This has been the standard 
approach for the  National Register and private property for over four decades.  
Dan  Hall

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Ryan Morton_ (mailto:ryan at buildmissoula.com)  
To: _missoulagov at cmslists.com_ (mailto:missoulagov at cmslists.com)   
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:54  PM
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov]  committee update 6-10-09


Perhaps, the Hist. Pres. Officer could have  more power to administratively 
approve projects so that less folks have  to go through a hearing to get a 
building permit.  People who are  upset about their property being listed as 
historic should chime in now  or get their properties delisted asap.
 
Anyhow, I'll hold off more comments until the  planning board hearing.
 
Ryan  Morton
Government Affairs  Director
Missoula Building Industry  Association
406.543.4423 or 406.546.0902  (cell)
ryan at buildmissoula.com
 

 
____________________________________
 From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com  
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Geoff  Badenoch
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:39 AM
To:  'Bob Jaffe'; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re:  [MissoulaGov] committee update 6-10-09




Putting on my  prognosticator’s hat with respect to the historic 
preservation issue, I  predict most heartburn will be generated by “In order to  get a 
building permit to do anything to the exterior of one of these  properties 
there will be an extra step where the preservation officer  will need to 
review the application to confirm that the project is  appropriate. Some 
projects will be able to be confirmed by the  preservation officer, some will need 
to go to the preservation  commission. Approval will be based upon a number 
of factors including  design standards to be developed for each historic 
district.  
I wonder if  this is the best way to go about this. Maybe it is, because 
historic  preservation is a good thing.  It ties us to our past, older  
structures are interesting to look at and provide a valuable visual  texture to 
local architecture and so on. That said, historic  preservation seems to 
always have to make its case over and over again  every generation.  And every so 
often, it turns to regulation to  help do its important work.  Yet, like so 
many issues in  Missoula, we are  setting the table for yet another classic 
Missoula confrontation  that may end up setting us back on this issue.  “It 
will add cost  to my project!” “This added step is taking time I don’t 
have--winter is  coming!” “It’s dangerous to put so much power into one person’
s (the  historic preservation officer) hands” “You mean I need someone’s  
historic OK to re-roof my family’s home?” “If the Historic Preservation  
Commission is unable to get a quorum in order to act on an issue, it  gets 
postponed?” Some of these predictable objections are more relevant  than 
others, but I can hear the wailing and anti-government voices  tuning up. Ideally 
our community would be able to create a workable  approach to supporting 
meaningful historic preservation, but I am afraid  the process Bob has 
described makes me think we will either end up  eroding support for historic 
preservation, or making local government  look bad, or both.   
 
Geoff  Badenoch 
P   Please  consider the environment before printing this email. 
-----Original  Message-----
From:  missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com  
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of Bob Jaffe
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009  11:33 PM
To:  missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: [MissoulaGov] committee  update 6-10-09 
Greetings, 
First I want to thank the folks who  contributed comments last week 
regarding the cost of developing housing  in Missoula. The information was very 
helpful. 
In Conservation this morning we  reviewed the plan for the development of 
the new Silver park at the Mill  Site.  Nothing really new from past Millsite 
presentations I have  seen. There will be some loop trails and a central 
patio type  structure.  There was some discussion about reducing the amount of 
 turf grass and incorporating native grasses and other low water  plantings 
where appropriate. 
The plan is still to put in the  parking lot near the stadium and complete 
the connection to California  street this summer for sure. MRA is also 
looking at putting the whole  park out to bid to see how it comes back. If the 
stars align they may  just go ahead and build the whole thing this year. 
In PAZ we heard a presentation  about historic preservation from Jennifer 
Buddenborg of the National  Trust for Historic Preservation. The gist was 
that historic preservation  makes a place unique and desirable. It is green and 
sustainable. It  creates jobs, increases tourism, and is good for the 
economy. Our next  item was to consider sending the new historic preservation 
ordinance to  the planning board. This is an amendment to the zoning code to  
incorporate an extra review process to protect historic assets.   This came 
before us a while ago but it had too many problems to move  forward. The 
current version is much closer to something that could be  adopted so we did 
vote to send it on. 
The basic idea is that there will  be an inventory maintained of all 
historic assets. These are properties  that are on the historic register, qualify 
to be on the register, or are  contributing properties to an historic 
district.  Currently there  are about 3500 such properties identified in Missoula. 
In order to get a  building permit to do anything to the exterior of one of 
these  properties there will be an extra step where the preservation 
officer  will need to review the application to confirm that the project is  
appropriate. Some projects will be able to be confirmed by the  preservation 
officer, some will need to go to the preservation  commission. Approval will be 
based upon a number of factors including  design standards to be developed 
for each historic district. It will be  very interesting to see how this 
progresses through planning  board. 
After lunch we reconvened for  A&F. We looked at a project being put 
together by the Rocky Mountain  Development Group to purchase the old Missoula 
Athletic Club.  The  MAC went under a couple of years ago. The property has 
since been  foreclosed on by the banks. Fortunately this qualifies the property 
for  the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).  The NSP is the piece  
of the bailout funding that went to help foreclosed homeowners. There  are 
the traditional set of strange rules and hoops to jump through but  in the end 
Montana gets about $19 million. Rick Wishcamper and his  partner Mike are 
the local experts on how to put together for profit  real estate deals with 
the government’s money. For this project they are  requesting $5 million in 
NSP money plus an additional $400,000 or so  from another federal pot. That 
covers about half the cost of the $10  million dollar project. The other half 
also comes from the feds from  some kind of HUD loan program. They are 
going to build a 115 unit  complex on the 3.5 acre site and rent the units to 
folks who are at 80%  area median income. The way the rules all work out that 
means they could  rent a two bedroom apartment for $722 including utilities. 
It sounds  like a pretty sweet deal for the developer but I guess that’s 
what  public private partnerships are all about. The feds are dumping all  
kinds of money into getting properties out of foreclosure and creating  
affordable housing. That’s exactly what these guys are  doing. 
As a side note, Renee voiced  concern about the hazards of putting 115 low 
income households all in  the same place. She thought it was ironic that the 
funds were for  neighborhood stabilization when this many poor people in 
the same place  was likely to destabilize the neighborhood. She appeared to be 
having  trouble finding the right word to describe the element that would 
live  in such housing. Jason pointed out that he himself was the element 
since  he easily qualified. Stacy also noted that her family purchased their  
home through assistance programs from HomeWord. Renee conceded that it  was 
likely she herself may fit into the 80% AMI  category. 
The discussion reinforces the point  that most folks can’t afford housing 
in this town. I imagine that just  about everyone on council would be hard 
pressed to purchase a home in  today’s market if they didn’t already have 
equity. This was the point of  the video the Mayor’s office put out last year. 
To show that the folks  who need assistance in housing are not destitute and 
impoverished, but  are just like you and me. So no reason to be fearful of “
affordable”  homes in your neighborhood.    
We voted to authorize the mayor to  send the application on to the state to 
compete for the NSP  funds. 
In public Works we set the public  hearing to establish SID 544 to install 
sewer lines in a chunk of the  middle rattlesnake. Will Snodgrass was there 
and made much fuss about  the legality of the whole process and again 
challenged the integrity of  Steve King and Bruce Bender. He seems quite certain 
that these two are  pulling off some kind of nefarious scam against the 
people of Missoula.  If I understand him right, his complaint is that we should 
not be using  federal funds to install the sewer unless we have first fully 
evaluated  alternative methods of disposal.  I take it he thinks the  
alternative methods are superior and we haven’t given them due  consideration. 
Once we were full on into the bored  and sleepy part of the day we took up 
the budget again. Still not really  a whole lot going on there. Everyone has 
cut back on all sorts of stuff.  The administration has come up with a 
scheme to fund what’s left. We’re  not really in a position to argue whether 
some department’s office  supply budget is appropriate.  I’m sure there is 
always a little  more we could squeeze out of the departments but sitting on 
council all  we know is what they tell us. If they are asking for new money 
we can  debate whether we think the new thing is worthy of the taxpayers 
money.  But this year they were all requested to find 3% to cut from their  
budgets. They are presenting us with the list of how they have tightened  up to 
get there.  So far these lists appear well thought through  and I haven’t 
seen much to challenge. 
Thanks for your interest,   
Bob Jaffe 
Missoula City Council, Ward  3 
1225 South 2nd  West 
Missoula, MT  59801 
(406) 728-1052 

 
____________________________________
_______________________________________________
-----Please  delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This  list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But 
posts to  this list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view  archives at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by  www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.


_______________________________________________
-----Please  delete extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This  list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But 
posts to this  list may be entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives  at Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by  www.CedarMountainSoftware.com. 


 
____________________________________
Download the _AOL  Classifieds Toolbar_ 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)  for local deals at your 
fingertips.
 
____________________________________
_______________________________________________
-----Please delete  extra content when replying to messages------

Note: This list is NOT  an official service of the City Of Missoula. But 
posts to this list may be  entered into the public record. 
Subscribe or view archives at  Missoulagov.org 
List Serve hosting provided by  www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.


**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your 
fingertips. 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090612/6eb7e503/attachment.htm>