[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 10-21-09

[Paradigm1 at aol.com]

LOL... thanks Steve... see you tonight.
 
 
In a message dated 10/26/2009 1:43:06 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,  
adler at bigsky.net writes:

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_ (mailto:Paradigm1 at aol.com)  
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:49 PM
To: _adler at bigsky.net_ (mailto:adler at bigsky.net)  ; _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)  ; 
_mayor at ci.missoula.mt.us_ (mailto: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/20091026/4013e31a/attachment.htm>