[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Steve Adler]

Carl,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I especially like your line about believing that aesthetic and creative choices are a lot like religion!  I think you've hit one of the very basic human elements of what's going on here.  See you at the meeting tonight?

Steve Adler




From: Paradigm1 at aol.com 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:49 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


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/a7c2d5c3/attachment.htm>