[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

Hi Steve... thanks for your thoughts. I understand where you are  coming 
from as well. In terms of the "social" part... very true, and again that  is 
why we have Zoning. It brackets projects already... in very definable  
parameters. Within those parameters, people are free to choose. I like that - it  
seems to suit Missoula's creative, eclectic past. I also see the point that  
very obvious historic landmarks need to be protected. I say go for that 
too.  Now... when it comes to historic districts as drawn up in Missoula right 
now --  I start to get nervous. Walking around those districts... there is 
every design  style under the sun. Also... there are many run-down structures 
that really  don't need another fee, more litigation exposure, and another 
regulatory  layer placed between them and the hope of physical improvement. 
I suppose it would be fine to set up a mandatory design  education meeting 
with the Historic preservation officer to discuss the value of  participating 
in historic review -- but after that, let people choose what  inspires 
them. I can say from experience, that historic participation works  best when 
people choose the path.
 
Finally, I really believe aesthetic and creative choices are a lot  like 
religion. There are plenty of great choices and ideas about it, nearly  
everyone thinks they have the best one, and it's best if Government doesn't pick  
a favorite.
 
 
Sincerely,
 
Carl Posewitz, Ward 3

 
 
In a message dated 10/26/2009 10:27:55 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
adler at bigsky.net writes:

 
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
 
 

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20091026/fc9127c2/attachment.htm>