[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Steve Adler]

In response to Carl Posewitz,

I think the language "architecture czar", "obstructionism" and the proposition that  " . . . designs for their businesses and homes enslaved (underline added) by it." are over-exaggerated, fear-mongering and inflammatory.  They presume egregious guilt before they presume any innocence.  As mentioned in another response, "presuming innocence until proven guilty" is a pretty basic American tenet.  I'd like the public discourse to keep that in mind.

As for the proposition that people should only be subject to zoning if they volunteer themselves for it:  this is actually a concept we floated by OPG years ago.  About 8 years ago, in fact.  The proposition was:
            What would it take to make standards or guidelines voluntary - just to get community momentum going - and have it be a positive, desired option, that individuals could impose upon themselves because they believe that's what is best for them?

The upshot was:  
            We are social critters, do things democratically (around here anyway) and are subject to state and local laws.  At the time, we were informed that there was no defensible way to have the city enforce "voluntary" guidelines through local zoning.  Voluntary efforts like this would have to be enforced through private means - like deed restrictions.

The fact is:  this is a zoning action.  It has to be.  It also has to follow the rules of public notice, open meetings, public process, etc.  So we have to rely on the system we have in place to democratically adopt, reject or amend any given proposal.  Individuals certainly have the opportunity to be involved in the public process, help shape any proposals going forward, and to voice their opinions.  The elected officials have the responsibility to their constituents and their community to do what is the collective best for the community.  But to allow each individual to determine zoning on his or her own doesn't work under this paradigm, desired as it may be by some people.


Thank you,

Steve Adler








From: Paradigm1 at aol.com 
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:32 AM
To: hdgray at modwest.com ; BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us ; missoulagov at cmslists.com 
Cc: council at ci.missoula.mt.us 
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09


I would definitely agree with Dave. Seems if we now need an architecture czar in Missoula, that individual had better be a registered architect in the State of Montana. I'm fairly certain State law would mandate it.

Additionally, under no circumstances should people be forced into this historic requirement without their consent. If they volunteer for it that's fine. Not everyone is so enamored with Missoula's past, that they should have creative ideas for the designs of their businesses and homes enslaved by it. Additionally... the verbiage in the ordinance is so vague and confusing.... I have no doubt it will lead to more obstructionism, more lawsuits as to how it has been interpreted, and yet another disincentive for investment in these areas.

I seriously hope the City Council sends this ordinace back for a complete re-do.... making it very clear to include only legitimate historic landmarks in future drafts.

Thank You,

Carl Posewitz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20091023/9fdcf4ce/attachment.htm>