[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Steve Adler]

Carl,

 I do get your concern for freedom of expression.  I get the feeling, though that you think this ordinance is meant to make 'everything new' look like 'everything old'.  Such is not the case.  Granted we don't have a whole lot of precedent in Missoula since the only districts with similar (historic)  review are Fort Missoula and "The Corner" (Eric Hefty's P.U.D.) across Higgins from Hellgate High School.  But for precedent, I could steer you to the Art Museum addition and The Corner.  Both were reviewed (the general basis of review being the Secretary of the Interior Standards) and passed review in their current forms.  I see these as examples of what can be done "new" under historic review.  Having been part of both review processes, I didn't see them as having been censored, stylistically, or having had their style "cramped".

I don't believe the ideals of individual expression and of historic districts are mutually exclusive.  

I know you have the highest regard for individual rights of expression.  But I see it as more of a social (such as zoning is . . .) "common good" issue, rather than individual issue.  I think it comes down to people being social in nature, and wanting some security that the neighborhood they buy into will retain the character they found worth buying into.  And I do agree that particular guidelines should be developed by each neighborhood, according to what each neighborhood finds valuable.

When you say "lays claim to a few thousand parcels", please realize that the district is the historic resource.  Thus things really should be dealt with, legally, in terms of a district.  I know of no precedent where someone has adopted historic district guidelines and allowed only certain members of the district to "opt out".  I think the practical ramifications administering a district with guidelines applying to some, but not others, though they share common property lines, would be disastrous.

The numbers bandied about in the last few meetings was something like 1800 to 1900 properties affected  (I can check numbers these with O.P.G. again, if that helps).  This represents about 7% of the properties in the city of Missoula.  Thus, 93% of the city would still be as "wide open" as zoning, building codes, covenants etc. let it be.  

I hope this helps provide some perspective.

Steve Adler




From: Paradigm1 at aol.com 
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 2:21 PM
To: adler at bigsky.net ; hdgray at modwest.com ; BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us ; missoulagov at cmslists.com 
Cc: council at ci.missoula.mt.us ; mayor at ci.missoula.mt.us 
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20091026/c7141afc/attachment.htm>