RECENT COMMENTS
attention Church Hill North residents!
There will be public meeting July 11th at 7pm at EDI (700 North 25th Street) to discuss the proposed Church Hill North Old & Historic District. This meeting is for property owners only. While others will not be barred from the meeting, organizers are not encouraging outside influences to attend.
From the flyer recently distributed around the neignorhood:
Members of the task force will
make a presentation on why we are
promoting the idea and what we see as
pros and cons of the designation.We have also invited city staff from
the Commission of Architectural Review
and the Department of Community
Development to make a brief presentation
on the designation process and to answer
any question you may have.We are seeking your feedback
at this meeting and hope to be able to
determine whether or not to continue with
this effort based on your opinions and level
of support.If you need more information before the
meeting, please contact Laura Daab at
649-1913 or laura@mysterydinner. com, or the Commission of Architectural
Review at 646-6335 or at the city website.
DOWNLOAD:
Fequently Asked Questions
announcement flyer
Hmm, I don’t suppose there has been much thought to the role this designation would have on these so-called “outside influence” neighborhoods. For instance, restricting architectural styles in Church Hill Old and Historic district may force less thoughtful, more economical architectural styles to say, adjacent neighborhoods (the old squeezing of the balloon). Considering this very issue is on-going in Union Hill, I am not sure if this would merely accelerate such a trend. So, while I understand that the passing of this process involves a vote of affected property owners only, I am pretty sure leaving out all possible affected parties (especially those immediately adjacent) might be a bit short sighted on the city’s part. So, in case my outside voice cannot attend, can an inside party ask this question to the planners for me…Has the city studied the impact of historic designation on adjacent, communities that have similar if not identical redevelopment patterns (and, historical importance by the way..I am guessing not). While it does not seem that the in-fill regulation “contemporary yet compatable”, (How’s that work in practice?) is being breached here too bad, I wonder if we might see more curious in-fill this way due to less red tape on this side of Jefferson? I guess we’ll see. Short of that, as we seem to have more lots than NCH, how about a limited infill policy for old Union Hill. Or incentives to developers for quality designs. Lord know we need people up here, and any more regulation on development might kill the so-called goose. We have incentives for historic preservation, why not on historically sensitive infill.
At least the houses in Union Hill are close to the same design. We have a new house on (I think) Leigh St that’s better suited for a suburban cookie cutter neighbor than for the historic area. This is a good thing. Maybe Bob should attend so he is able to see how we made this happen for us so he can do it for Union Hill. And while I agree we need good and decent people up here but should we have to endure suburbia hell? I say no!
I’m a pretty leftest dude and am actually interested in seeing my area of Church Hill gain historic designation, but I also believe market forces have to come into play here. I don’t have any data but I have noticed that it seems that the newer infill and lower quality rehabs being done for a quick flip are staying on the market while the higher quality renovations that keep the historic character of the neighborhoods are selling. If there is no market for suburban style homes with improper setbacks and building materials then hopefully people will stop building them. I’d actually like to see our neighborhood association offer guidance to developers and maybe provide alternate home designs (FOR FREE) for more appropriate infill housing. There is no better incentive than $$$ for a developer or rehabber (I heard Bush say it) to stay away from the type of infill and rehab that so many are concerned about. It doesn’t always have to be the city.
I agree JC (and Rugger). That said, there are three of these infill things within a stone’s throw from my house (I’ve got a good arm!); no doubt, about to become rentals. As far as the city getting involved, I do not think folks who see historic preservation as principally a community revitalization strategy (rather than a historic fetish /obesssion with authenticity enabling strategy) would oppose having the city offer incentives to historic nods in infill design. Yes the market will ultimately have its say, but I fear that the market in this case is imperfect and will leave us with a quasi-historic neighborhood at best in short course. As far as another layer of regulation proposed, I do not think that Union Hill could stand any more impediments to its budding redevelopment momentum. I am just afraid that by the time we do have some market leverage, we will look like a Levittown: then, why bother.
I’d like to respond to Bob’s comment. There is a group in your area, Union Hill, organizing to get the same designation that we are seeking. I went to a Union Hill Civic Association meeting at Jill Reynold’s earlier this spring to share my research and efforts with them.
I understand you concerns, but believe that an O&H designation is the way to go and beneficial for everyone in the district and the surrounding area.
Also, we have a ton of empty lots in our area. Just drive around and look. On my block alone, there are 6 empty lots – precisely the reason why I’m so motivated to get this designation for my block. I don’t want the cheap, monstrosities that are being built nearby to end up across the street from me, or anywhere else for that matter.
Inn addition, I’m tired of the shoddy workmanship going into the rehabs nearby. It’s really disheartening.
I’ve put my heart and soul into this initiative and feel it is the best thing for the neighborhood.
This meeting if for property owners because they are the ones who will decide this issue. If we get far enough along with this and the majority of property owners want this, then there will be public hearings with the City Council where you are more than welcome to attend.
I think we’ve all seen what the free market has done to Church Hill. Developers need to be forced to comply with certain guidlines. The tax incentives that are in place now for historic properties are voluntary only – not good enough!
A historic zoning overlay is the only way to stop our neighborhood from being trashed.
Well said, Laura.
The extra expense of review and design costs due to the local historic designation would be a burden and a barrier for most residents.
Most home improvement budgets consist of sweat equity and elbow grease. With the rise in property values, people are taking out loans just to pay their property taxes and restoration expenses.
This means with the local historic designation, you would have to have deep pockets when it comes to “restoration” to the historic standards. It would be an economic “cleansing” of the neighborhood. Meaning it forces the less affluent to sell out to those who can keep up with the expenses and paperwork.
The idea that City historic designation designation for north Church Hill would somehow harm Union Hill is flawed. How did the St. John’s designation harm North Church Hill? It didn’t. It sowed the seeds of redevelopment, however mixed you may judge such redevelopment.
The answer for Union Hill shouldn’t be to oppose North Church Hill’s efforts. Instead, we in Union Hill should mobilize our own similar effort. Opposing North Church Hill would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
The anonymous comment posted at 9:38am is simply untrue and uniformed. This is an old chestnut argument that has kept our city in such disrepair for a long, long time.
I would like to rebut this argument with comments from locals residents:
1st comment:
Taxes – they are already high without any historic district – also –
generally you can use the Fan as an excellent example of high property
values and taxes and they have NO City Old and Historic District. The
Fan likely has the highest property values of any city neighborhood all
without the added designation of the district. Historic Districts are
designed to protect something that has intrinsic value, not create or
inflate value.
2nd comment:
I applied for the tax reduction; if you are over 65 and make less than $50,000 you are eligible to apply and my brake was 30% for 2005. You
can lock it in for three years or apply each year. Yearly, the city uses a
designated pot so the percentage can vary.
comment 3:
I am off the phone with a Ms. Moore, Assessments, 646-5227. She claims
a program is in place for Elderly and Disabled, and is handled by the
Finance Dep’t, 646.5690. ” A program exists where taxes can be frozen “for 3 years, or pro-rated per income…” per Ms. Moore. This takes effort on the part of the tax payer, just like applying and qualifying for the historic rebate
program.
Also, no one is forced to renovate properties once an O & H distrcit is in place. It’s called “grandfathering.” Meaning, your house can remain the same without compliance unless you change exterior structures, such as additions or porches, and color/siding.
And, people may not want to hear this, but owning a home is a big responsibility! Whether you are young, old, rich or poor. A property owner has a responsibility to maintain one’s property to comply with local building codes, zoning laws, and safety codes.
It hasn’t been until after WWII that owning a home was even a possiblity for most people. My grandparents never owned their own home.
Owning a home isn’t an automatic right that we are given – there are obligations & sacrifices involved.
I am not rich, and most of my neighbors aren’t either. I manage to maintain my property, and I plan on living in Church Hill for a long time.
An O&H district isn’t going to change that.
Well put, Laura!
WHERE IS THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY?
To find out the boundaries of the proposed O&H district, download the pdf files at the beginning of this page that are titled: “Frequently Asked Questions”
On balance, I think Laura is right. I am not opposed to NCH’s proposal on its face, I am just positing that it might have an impact on adjacent communities. Therein lies the rub with these special districts (be they regulatory or revenue generating) as research on certain special districts suggests that efforts at, say, crime reduction in such districts does in fact lead to diplacement of crime to adjacent areas. It would seem that an area with an increased regulatory hurdle might lead to the regulated activity occurring elsewhere. Some here have suggested that this is flawed logic. Short of doing a longitudinal study, I will just leave it at that: a hypothesis.
While Laura has proposed that concerned adjacent communities replicate such a district, I am suggesting, all passions for this policy solution aside, that it might not be in the best short or mid term interest to do so considering the fragile real estate market (and there may be more effecacious solutions that are less onerous to developers..such as a tax credit for venacular designs). Conversely, I guess if we can convince appraisers to look for comps south of Jefferson, we might be able to free ride off this policy! (that is, if it leads to comparatively higher RE values).
That said, Laura is right and that the place to voice such concerns is at the City Council level. I wonder what position Silver Persinger will take on this?!
As I have already written way too much on this issue, let me just leave it at this: if I was in a similar situation and owned a home south of Jefferson, I would vote for it. Because it will no doubt lead to a more aesthetically pleasing environment (and, by extension, higher real estate values). Add the simple fact that neighborhoods that contribute more to the public till via taxes, in general, have a greater claim to public resources.
i was unable to attend the meeting. can someone post an unbiased overview?
Well, from what i heard from those who attended the meeting, most of those people pushing the issue have historic easements on their deed. HIstoric easements are issued by qualified historic preservation associations that
insure that the property owner and future owners keep the property up to historic standards.
These historic organizations inspect the property to make sure that the owners are complying with the terms.
So, in essence, these owners with historic easements already have the “old and historic” obligations. They just want everyone else to have them too.
from Laura Dabb —
Here’s a recap of the public information meeting we had on July 11 at the EDI Center regarding the proposed Church Hill North Old & Historic district.
Approximately 60-70 people attended the meeting – great turnout!
The public information meeting took place on July 11th at the EDI Center,
700 North 25th Street in Church Hill. There were approximately 60-70 people in attendance. The task force gave a PowerPoint presentation and many property owners from within the proposed boundaries spoke on the merits of an Old & Historic District designation. Mr. Gleiser and Christine Fox from the Department of Community Development attended the meeting. Also in attendance were 7th District City Council Representative, Delores McQuinn and her liaison, Sam Patterson.
Mr. Gleiser spent an hour in a question and answer session with the attending homeowners. At the end of the session, an informal survey was
conducted, in which an overwhelming majority of homeowners were in favor of the designation. About 5-7 people were tentatively opposed to the
designation. The results of this survey are a good indicator of the majority
of homeowners’ desire for a historic district in the proposed area.
A letter from the task force has been sent to the Commission of Architectural Review requesting that the board begin the process for a
city-designated Church Hill North Old & Historic District. The CAR board
will then send out a survey to all property owners asking for their support.
When the surveys are received, CAR will determine whether or not to hold
public hearings with City Council, as the Council has the final say on the
designation. After these public hearings, Council will vote on the
designation.
I would like to respond to anonymous. Why don’t you identify yourself? Why is it that ignorant, uninformed comments are always anonymous?
Please do not post comments that are hearsay. You did not attend the meeting, and therefore cannot give an objective assessment of what happened.
What you say you “heard” is not at all accurate. It sounds like you have been talking to the very few people who oppose the designation.
You make the people supporting the initiatve sound like they are selfish and self-serving.
The designation benefits all of us. Those of us who favorthe designation desire a greater good for the community. Since the city is so short-sighted and irresponsible that it won’t protect it’s historic resources, we will do everything we can to see that the homeowners of Church Hill have the protection they deserve.
I must second Laura’s post of July 24.
Anonymous please tell me of a neighborhood ruined by an historic distric? Savannah, GA, Charleston Sc, New Orleans, LA (They have 7 of them),Georgetown DC, Old Town Alexandria, Annapolis MD are all sucess stories that dodged the wrecking ball.
I truly feel sorry for you that you believe everthing is a conspiracy that opposes your view. It is amazing that you cannot belive that friends and neighbors want to help their neighborhood.
Before you post an uniformed rant like that- please ask your self “Is everything okay at home?”
A follow-up to annoymous (posted July 24th). This was posted by “shanana” in an answer to “shanana” comment of whether or not anyone had an unbiased report about the meeting on July 11.
So in other words, this comment and answer was a set-up by someone calling themselves “shanana.”
What do you hope to gain or prove by that kind of behavior?
Grow-up!
I would also prefer to remain anonymous as I disagree with the initiative and it is clear by the comments posted above that those who are in support are venemous in their response to those who disagree with their limited point of view, but I dont want to offer an addditional angle for them to attack me on too.
Laura proudly touts a 1 hour question and answer session… I was there and left because after the first comment which was ‘I just installed vinyl replacement windows in my home which would not be acceptable by CAR if we were already designated O&H’ The reply was he would be grandfathered and not made to change them. He rebutted by saying he had a few windows left to go and could not afford to do them prior to the designation as they cost $1500 each, and afterward he would not be ALLOWED. Also, that it was his opinion that they were nice windows. A lady that is for the initiative pointed out that no matter how much he spent on them they were not worth the money he paid. That if he wanted to ‘enlighten’ himself he should call CAR and they would tell him how to comply with their rules and it wouldnt cost him ‘that much more.’
Then I believe it was Laura who stood up and said if anyone had a question about ‘how to make the old and historic distric happen, they could speak, otherwise she was not going to allow it to degrade into a complaint session.’ So to call that an opportunity to ask questions is completely misleading. I was so disgusted I left as did several others so we were not included in the informal vote. There was no opportunity to voice concerns.
To say most people are in favor… you won’t give any credit to anyone who disagrees. My fear in allowing the O&H is that we are getting a Homeowners Association. I earned the property I own with blood, sweat and tears. I have no desire to have someone who contributed nothing to it tell me what I can or cannot do.
I am about to begin refurbishing my windows, because I value the historic value of my home and want to maintain it in as authentic a manner as I am able. However, it will be my choice to do so, I am not interested in being mandated by my neighbors.
The building materials that are required by CAR are generally more expensive than the modern day options available. I am concerned that the O&H is going to create a situation where condemned houses will not be made livable due to the additional cost associated with the restrictions. Also, neighbors are free to leave their houses run down (grandfather provision) if they can’t afford to fix it the way CAR would approve… I would rather they fix it up any way they can afford to do it.
As far as the city being irresponsible (section 8), they are already restricted to appropriate infill by the “historic neighborhood” designation (see http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf). Drive around the neighborhood sometime. The contractors are doing a beautiful job of infilling with very appropriate buildings. The O&H is overkill, the goal of improving the neighborhood and maintaining its historic charm is being accomplished without it.
I am very disappointed in reading the responses from Laura and other pro O&H people who are personally attacking those with different view points. I would vote against the O&H designation for the reason that it would require dealing with a group of people who are condecending, have over inflated egos and don’t know how to deal with someone diplomatically, instead they take to personal attacks. This sounds like some kind of Neo-Nazi organization where opposing views are not allowed as was the case at this meeting. It was clearly stated that only those who wanted to know how to get the O&H designation approved would be heard since anyone voicing an opposing view would be reducing the meeting to a beef session. If the O&H designation is approved these same zealots will be the ones policing the neighborhood. The vindictive attitudes shown in their responses will only be increased by their percieved authority. It seems to me that this is what this is all about, people with too much time on their hands grasping for power.
I’m calling on Godwin’s law and closing comments on this thread.