[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

Steve... another basic American tenant is the right to creative and  
artistic freedom. Obviously my issue with this Ordinance is that it covers way  
more than the protection of legitimate historic landmarks. It also lays claim 
to  a few thousand parcels that most likely have very limited historic 
significance.  Lots that are empty, have metal buildings on them, 70's style 
houses etc, should  not be subject to historic review. Missoula has a brand new 
200 + page Zoning  ordinance which already establishes design envelopes for 
these parcels. Within  those envelopes, Missoulians should be free to 
explore whatever creative and  artistic design ideas they chose. The funky collage 
of varied architectural  ideas over time... is exactly what has shaped many 
parts of Missoula. I see no  compelling reason to have local government 
step in... and start limiting  those ideas and choices -- anymore than local 
government should be dictating  what productions a theater puts on, the 
stories an author should be writing, or  the songs a musician should be playing. 
 
Again... I have no problem with Zoning, agree we need to preserve  
legitimate historic landmarks, but sincerely hope City Council will not support  
another layer of regulation which flat out is there to evaluate and limit  
creative and artistic thought.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
 
Carl Posewitz, Ward 3
 
 


 
 
In a message dated 10/23/2009 4:11:48 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
adler at bigsky.net writes:

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_ (mailto:Paradigm1 at aol.com)  
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:32 AM
To: _hdgray at modwest.com_ (mailto:hdgray at modwest.com)  ; 
_BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us_ (mailto:BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us)  ; _missoulagov at cmslists.com_ 
(mailto:missoulagov at cmslists.com)  
Cc: _council at ci.missoula.mt.us_ (mailto: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/20091025/c196a5bc/attachment.htm>