RECENT COMMENTS
What is appropriate in an Old & Historic District?
Style Weekly takes a look at the other CAR controversy from last week’s City Council meeting:
Dotts, a professional preservationist, lives in Church Hill and must run any exterior change she wants to make to her house past the city’s architectural review board. She says the board’s over-zealous misinterpretation of its own guidelines leads to cases such as hers, where a drawn-out, bureaucratic obstacle course must precede adding something as simple as a gate from the same period as her home.
Not so fast, says David Johannas, chairman of the city’s Commission of Architectural Review, who says it ensures the authenticity of neighborhoods. Adding a gate that wasn’t physically at that address during the home’s period of historic significance, is the architectural equivalent of wearing drag. If there was a fence that went in, Johannas says, he would have preferred one that didn’t give a false impression of having been there all along.
See also:
CAR and acorn are way out over the line. If you look at the most interesting parts of europe, it’s where they mesh the old with the new. There’s nothing so special about any house in Church Hill that painting it a different color matters. Soon you’ll be required to ride a horse up there bc cars aren’t period. These guys have way to much power and there’s way too much corruption. Somebody needs put these people in place and it’s probably going to require a lawsuit.
CAR and acorn are heading towards fanaticism, extreme selfishness and civic terrorism. They leave no room for compromise.
Is there anybody who is following this story and who doesn’t just think that Dotts wouldn’t be delighted with the restrictions put on an old and historic district IF it didn’t clash with her exterior design agenda.
For some reason this horrid miscarriage of justice that Jennie is so wound up about didn’t seem to be a problem until she decided to tart up her front yard.
It is just a mercy that she hasn’t gone further afield and decided that the Empire style or maybe High Gothic isn’t what she wants her house to look like, because everybody in the world would certainly roll over and accommodate whatever the fashion of the season.
Before we discard the careful guidelines that have been in place for 50 years, let’s sort out the personalities driving this incentive.
The comment above about CAR and Acorn headed toward “fanaticism, extreme selfishness and civic terrorism” is a real howler – thanks for that. I always appreciate a good laugh before turning in.
Given City Council exempts CAR for certain developers, what good is CAR?
CAR may or may not be “fanaticism” but it is too weak to count on for historic protection protection anyway.
Burger- I think CAR is a very valuable tool that may need some fine tuning. Believing City Council exempts certain developers from CAR is missing the point imo. CAR is what we should be focusing on. After my own experiences with CAR, and more recently the Oakwood and Dotts case, I am wondering if there could be an incompatibility issue on the CAR Board? It seems they are almost at war with one another and even their own staff when you look at these two cases. In-fighting will definitely lead to a mix message and self defeating outcomes.
I don’t understand the ‘the gate wasn’t there originally’ part. How do they know? I mean, do they want everything to look the way it did the day the house was constructed, 1 year later, 5, 10, etc.? It makes no sense, I doubt they have a record of every house and it’s appearance every year since it was built. These guidlines should be general in nature, they have gotten way too specific.
Dave: I believe that one of the issues with the gate is that it is a salvaged piece (I may be wrong – if so, my apologies), meaning that it was removed from another historic site for re-sale. Typically, the use of salvaged materials is not encouraged in historic preservation projects as this practice may encourage the demolition of historic properties in order to break them up into their various pieces and parts. If I understand the position of CAR, a new fence/gate may have been acceptable.
Johannas’ response is ridiculous. I do not live in a historical theme park. I live in a modern city!
Who is on the CAR Board and how do they get there? How can they be removed?
Who hires the staff?
I can somewhat understand the “creating a false sense of history” when it comes to adding an addition, or totally new construction. Although, my initial desire would be to want to make something that did not stick out on the block like a sore thumb.
My only disagreement with CAR is in regards to regarding restoration or repair. I consider these old houses antiques. If you buy an antique table to restore and one of the claw feet is missing do you put a round ball on the end because you do not want to make it look like it’s always been there? No, you carve another. Yes, it creates a false sense of history but aesthetically it’s pleasing. It fits.
CAR adds value here. Compare properties within one block of the historic districts end. The fabric changes. Even the style of the new houses changes.
Wolf – Even color adds/detracts from value. Have you ever been driving through a neighborhood and come across an orange house? Or a colonial style house painted tropical blue with rusty red painted columns? I did in my search for places in Richmond to invest in. You wouldn’t believe the color combinations I’ve seen. Some folks just don’t have a good eye for that. I’m sure you’d be a little taken aback if you walked out your front door one morning to see the house next to yours was being painted Pepto Bismal pink. Now THAT’s tarting up a house 😉
Did somebody say orange house?
John… what I saw was ORANGE-er! 😉
Hey now! My house is orange!!!
But I prefer to call it clementine. And ya gotta smile when you say that…
ps – I am down the hill, too – not in the O&H. 🙂
With reference to CAR:
http://eservices.ci.richmond.va.us/applications/boardscommissions/BCDetail.aspx?mybckey=132
There is an application form for anyone who wants to volunteer for any Board or Commission on the same waebsite.
Shannon… I’m sure it’s lovey 🙂
JoeRichmond #9, staff members for CAR are city employees, hired by Dept. of Community Development. They interview for jobs just as anyone else; as necessary, some (if not most) have specific expertise and education in areas such as urban planning or architectural history. (Obviously a file clerk or receptionist probably doesn’t have that sort of background).
As to the members of the commission, Mr. Hartsock has provided information about the commission itself in post #14. I don’t know of a process for removal of the commission members, and people who serve naturally rotate off after a number of years. There have been other controversial members over the years, and eventually, if you wait long enough, they’re gone, although sometimes not soon enough for some people after some rulings.
“Nan,” I see you left the same line on the Style comment section about “CAR and acorn are heading towards fanaticism, extreme selfishness and civic terrorism….”
Your one line comment, repeated here and there, makes you look like a moron unless you defend this rather strong statement or at least explain what on earth you mean.
Did somebody put you up to this and email you your lines? Or are you just not too creative that you can’t come up with some comment that is actually meaningful to the discussion?
Come on and try to expound on your little blast. Oh, by “expound,” I mean “make bigger.” Thought I’d better explain that.
I posted this on another thread; it’s more relevant here:
I’m a private citizen with enough intelligence to know that there are contradictions and perversions of the guidelines and how they are carried out. I don’t want to impose my taste on anyone. It’s not a questions of liking or disliking a design/alteration to a property. It’s about holding the original intent of the Old & Historic Districts in tact. I believe that the Dept. of Interior guidelines that were adopted into the original City of Richmond O&H guidelines are a diversion from and being interpreted in such a way as to erode our historic communities.
I’m not proposing to kill the CAR. It’s an essential tool and custodian for our neighborhoods, Still, there is a need to revisit and amend some of the current guidelines, in particular, the “contemporary†language, and the “of it’s time†language. I’m not saying take them out, but to reword those passages that more clearly indicated that “contemporary†and “of its time†also means being historically faithful to the adjacent buildings and the immediate surrounding area.
The way the guidelines are being ruled on currently are twisted so that review boards ask those building infill and making alterations convey “newness†to the lowest common denominator- typically the bystander on the street.
The guidelines can be satisfied by allowing informed architects, designers and builders to differentiate in a way that is faithful to adjacent buildings and surroundings with subtlety and care that honors the history of that particular area and creates what some folks call a “sense of place.â€
Member of the CAR board have argued that new infill and alterations need to show a very distinct sense of it’s time. One member in particular likes to call our historic areas “living museums.†That’s fair enough, but he goes further to say that the areas must be a dynamic evolution of time and each new building and alteration must show to the average passerby, an obvious visual representation of the present. That’s where I believe is the fallacy and the reason our Districts are being eroded.
If you look at the Charleston SC and Savannah SC Historic District Guidelines
you’ll see that they also use the Dept of Interior Standards, amended somewhat, and adapted for their use. In regard to alterations and infill, these two cities’ language in the guidelines are better written. They maintain, what I believe is the original intent behind the guidelines that were written long before 1977 when the Dept. of Int. Standards were added.
Using the Dept. of Interior Standards is not a requirement by municipalities, but they all use them nonetheless; probably meant for uniformity among the various review entities at the Fed, state and city levels.
I think that it would be of great value to hear from the two men that actually created the Dept. Of Interior Standards. They are Brown Morton and Gary Hume. What is their take on how the standards are being used in Richmond?
It’s been mentioned before by a few people on this site, but Calder Loth, an architectural historian with the DHR has written a very good paper on the subject.
hillkid – VERY nicely said.
hillkid, the nps or (more complex)the secretary of the interior, stds are fine, more than 2 people wrote it, a whole bunch, over a long time, and amended from time to time, backed up by a whole bunch of other “experts”
local govt can adopt stds they wish and often it is the nps stds. the rub is when the local govt adopts and amends the nps stds and the house of cards falls, cause likely the local amendment conflicts with something else in nps stds.
#20/bill:
I think you will find that the Charleston and Savannah guidelines are “amended” in such a way that addresses specific characteristics of their city and districts. I don’t see this as a falling house of cards, but as a thoughtful and informed approach to applying the standards to their localities.
I think what has happened in Richmond is that somewhere along the line a modernistic,or should I say International Style, of thought got incorporated into the language. The literal use of “contemporary” and singling out of the language “of its time” without regard to the other language in the guidelines that speaks to respecting and preserving the existing housing stock. New infill and alterations should compliment and have a relationship with that housing stock, not differentiate itself so much that an on-looker would remark, “Whoa, that’s new.”
I think that you and I agree on many points. How do we get back to the original intent behind the Old & Historic District Guidelines? I think it is revisiting the Guidelines and working on the language. Maybe that means adhering more to the NPS language, in regard to Richmond in particular.
It also wouldn’t hurt to have some more folks on the CAR that are of the classic/traditional school of architecture, and understand how to make informed review decisions that satisfy the original intent of the guidelines.
Another brief point:
The NPS standards and the Richmond O&H guidelines say very little about alterations and infill, hence the problem. Richmond’s guidelines only devote around 6 pages out of 108 to the subject.
NPS guidelines were established more for historic landmarks, not residential O&H districts. That’s why the NPS standards are so ambiguous and open to faulty interpretation when applying them to our neighborhoods.
maybe take a look at preservation brief 14. infill is an addition, although it might be just across the property line. nps stds dont seem ambiguous to me, they allow the builder/arch a degree of freedom. maybe you are looking to legislate/set the standard for taste in black and white. that is a tough one, some like their whiskey brown, some like it clear, and some dont like it at all. maybe that is a problem at the car, trying to legislate taste.
bill – what is preservation brief number 14? Can you provide a link, or am I being dumb and should I know what it is?
Also for bill- I didn’t interpret hillkid’s posts to mean he/she is trying to legislate taste, I’m hearing a suggestion for revising the language, particularly regarding infill.
To both bill and hillkid – this is a good discussion so far. I’m thinking of two examples of infill that are in an O&H and are opposite of each other design-wise (not address-wise), and I’m not sure if either of you have viewed them recently. One is on ‘Short’ 30th Street (off Libby Terrace), brick house, put in in the last ten years or less. It’s on the east side of Short 30th, I think it’s the last house on the street. It was architect designed, and argued about endlessly up here when it went up (prior to this blog existing, though). However, I think it fits in well and compliments the existing houses. It’s in the St. John’s O&H.
The other example is on 28th Street in the North of Broad O&H (I hope I’ve got the right street) somewhere near Laura and Jim Dabb’s house, that one went up more recently and was the subject of much discussion on this blog, and I don’t think it fits or compliments anything at all. Without going back on this blog to find the posts, I seem to recall it has asphalt shingles, as well as a roof line that doesn’t fit in with surrounding houses.
So my question is, how do you make infill fit, and how do you define it with the correct language in the CAR definitions? The house on Short 30th was a thoughtful attempt by an architect (and owner) to build infill. The one on 28th was not, in my opinion.
What’s the cure? Take a look at least at the house on Short 30th, and explain how the language could be enhanced? Thanks.
crd:
I believe what bill is referring to is this from the Dept. Of Interior Standards and guidelines:
“New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”
bill may have been referring to a passage from the guidelines which is a supplement to the standards. It’s late, so I’ll have to look that up tomorrow. Let me know bill.
bill:
I don’t know you, but you seem like an informed observer to me, so maybe this language would not be ambiguous to you. But is is ambiguous to many, including scholars, architects and other informed observers. Again, the paper that Calder Loth has delivered at many professional conferences speaks to this. I have a pdf of the paper, but I don’t have a link to share.
crd:
Regarding the short 30th St. house and the N. 28th St. house:
Yes, I am familiar with both. I think both houses show how confusing the guidelines can be, and the wide interpretations that review boards make.
Short 30th St. – The house definitely fits with massing, scale, materials (somewhat), setbacks and roof lines. What about design? Can anyone tell me what the architectural style is for this property? It looks like someone forced modernistic elements on an Italianate facade to make it “of its time” and “contemporary” so that the passers-by will know it’s “new.” How does the style of the building fit it’s surroundings in a historic district so that it is a subtle and careful representation/differentiation from the other houses on the block? It achieves this better than N. 28th St.
N. 28th St:
This house violates pretty much all the guidelines in my opinion. The massing, roof line, scale, materials, setbacks and design do not compliment or fit in with anything on the block. This house is a severe example of a twisting and perversion of the guidelines. Again, I would like someone to tell me what the architectural style of this house is. I would propose that it is an amalgam of styles being forced together to illustrate the “of its time” and “contemporary” language that the CAR obsesses about with no regard for its historic surroundings and adjacent structures.
I’m not a pro, so I’ll leave to them to work on the language.
Here’s an except taken from a presentation given by Calder Loth at the Traditional Building Conference, Washington, D.C. October 4, 2006
Session II, Infill and Additions: Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
“With that in mind, I ask your thoughts on refining the following guideline on additions:
Recall it says: “Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids and color.â€
A revision might read:
“Design for the new work may be contemporary, or may reference design motifs from the historic building, or may be an informed interpretation of the architectural styles of the historic building or district. In either case, the addition should incorporate a visually respectful and subtle differentiation from the historic building, and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids and color.â€
While we are at it, let’s address infill: remember that portion of the guideline about building sites that says: “Recommended: Designing new exterior additions to historic buildings or adjacent new construction which is compatible with the historic character of the site and which preserve the historic relationship between a building or buildings, landscape features, and open space.â€
To that I would add the following sentence: “The new construction may reference design motifs from adjacent historic buildings and structures, or be an informed interpretation of the architectural style of adjacent historic buildings and structures.â€
Please note in these proposed revisions that the operative word is informed. As Andres Duany has said: “The chief enemy of traditional architecture is bad traditional.†If you are going to play the game, particularly with Classical architecture, you have to know the rules.
In summary, the work of properly trained traditional architects demonstrates that it’s possible to design literate, informed traditional-style additions and infill. But to obtain this it is necessary to have administrators properly trained in traditional design in order to give such properties informed review. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards need to acknowledge that informed traditional design solutions are legitimate, acceptable, and of our time.”
Odd that after hillkid made her insightful post and Bill followed, all of those people who seem to oppose to historical accuracy suddenly shut up.
C.A.R. is a joke.
Eric
#26/Eric:
While I respect you passion for preservation and our neighborhood, I disagree with you in that I don’t think that the CAR is a joke. I do think there are problems that need to be worked out and I have discussed that more thoroughly above.
The conversation may have gone silent because it is starting to delve into the minutiae of the debate. A lot of this may come off as academic and dry, but it is the crux of the matter. This is all good stuff and I hope that folks take a look at it.
I received a great article on the subject of differentiation and compatibility. It’s written by Steven Semes. He is the Academic Director of the Rome Studies Center for the University of Notre Dame School of Architecture. This article is based on his forthcoming book, The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation.
http://www.traditional-building.com/Previous-Issues-09/FebruaryFeature09.html
I received that same article 🙂
Can anyone tell me whether interior storm windows improve efficiency and significantly cut down street noise? We’ve tried caulking the windows shut and putting plastic up, but we continue to run an inefficient house (we’ve also insulated top to bottom). We can hear “normal” conversations on the street. You don’t have to shout for me to hear what you’re saying as I’m watching TV in my living room. I’d love to know whether interior storm windows would alleviate our issues, since CAR will not approve replacing our single-pane, original windows with an historical-quality replacement (such as Renewal by Andersen). I don’t want to ask this question to start the argument about keeping the windows and being green and maintaining historical preservation (I was an archaeology major, and I’m all for historical preservation, but I also think there’s a limit when it impacts your financial and emotional state. The original windows attracted me to the house. Now, they quite frankly make us miserable), but that contradicts being efficient and reducing noise pollution. If interior storm windows truly help and don’t negatively impact the interior of our home, I’m all for that solution. Thanks for any recommendations.
Also, does anyone know if CAR enforces the breaking of historical guidelines? What happens if I replace my windows without their permission? In my area of the neighborhood, Chimborazo-Oakwood, I see many alterations that couldn’t possibly be approved – vinyl replacement windows, modern front stair rails made out of cable instead of wood, etc. It’s as if the rules apply to some and not others.
Nick – send me your address via email and I’d be happy to come by, take a peek and give you neighborly advice on the windows. deanna@314n36thst.com
JELD-WEN has a nice selection of windows – CAR approved those.
hillkid – thanks for using a favorite word: minutiae [my-new-shee-eye]
“trifling or precise details” [Late Latin, plural of minutia smallness]
Nick:
Exterior storm windows will greatly help the sound issues you mentioned – you mentioned interior storms, but exterior storms may be the way to go. There have been some instances of moisture condesation problems with interior storm windows – and unless you get the expensive operable kind, they have to be removed and set aside to operate your windows. Exterior storms will not only help with thermal/sound issues, but will protect the exterior surface and historic glass of your wood windows. There are a number of companies that supply good, low-profile exterior storms that would meet not only CAR guidelines but those of the National Park Service as well.
I am glad to live in Historic Church Hill. I am even happier that I live in the section of Church Hill that is not on the minds and radar of the CARs and Anti CARs of the community. I would love to see a CAR representative come to my home that I worked hard to get and renovate and tell me my windows are from the 1920s and must come out because my home was built in the 1910s. That is laughable. People move to areas like this to get away from the Suburban mom with nothing better to do then ride around and critique the sty lings of other homes. I agree some homes get carried away and there should be a venue to get that corrected. But a gate come on give me a rest.
I love the horse comment. Who is going to clean up after them.
Does Car consider the environmental impact of their decisions?
GOD Speed
Alphabet city – I wondered if CAR cared about the environmental impact of their decisions too.
They told me I could not restore the original windows that were on the back of the house and move them to the back of the new addition.
They said that it would create a false sense of history if I did so. After reviewing their decision a month later and considering that I redesigned the addition so it did not look “original” to the house they ruled that I could keep the original windows.
Too late. They ended up in a land fill. It’s been an education for me.
I think your 1920 windows are safe 😉
30 & 31, thank you for your responses. For #31: Brandon, I see exterior storm windows on houses and I think they detract from the beauty of the house (unless you know of some invisible ones!). To me, they look modern and give the appearance similar to what a vinyl window would do. That’s one of the reasons I don’t understand CAR approving of that solution and dismissing my request to allow me to replace my window with wood Jen-Weld or Andersen.
For #30, I’ll email you and thanks for the offer. CAR will not allow me to put in new windows unless my original ones are broken beyond repair (which they aren’t) or they were not original to the house (which they are).
I’d love to have the freedom to replace our current single-pane windows with new windows that look exactly like the ones we have now (which is entirely possible). The only difference is that these new *magic* windows will drown out the GRTC bus announcing it’s arrival in the front of my house, “R Street, Church Hill! Welcome Aboard GRTC!” at all hours of the day and night. And, yes, my complaints to GRTC have fallen on deaf ears. I just want to have some piece and quite and efficiency in my home.
Nick,
In response to your questions about old windows and storm window protection, I’d like to make a few suggestions. (Call me at 804-648-1616 or email jennie@oldhouseauthority.com if you’d prefer). Old House Authority (www.oldhouseauthority.com) carries both interior and exterior storms, but we advise the exterior ones as they offer better protection for the window itself. We have them on our house here on a noisy street in Church Hill. In addition to seriously reducing energy consumption, the noise reduction has been significant. (In fact, the storms allow us to sleep through the always-boisterous bar closing across the street at 2 am). We can provide windows in any shape or size and all lines of our windows have been approved for use on Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit projects and are in use in Old & Historic Districts throughout Richmond. Please call us for details and a free consultation.
Nick- You might try Dixon Kerr at Old House Authority. He installs a line known as invisible storm windows, and I contracted him for the front of my house. I came home from work, knew they had been done, and could not see them except on close inspection. They are more expensive than the Lowe’s version, but you can’t really tell they’re there unless you are looking for them. They don’t look vinyl at all.
Nick – I’ve been looking into Innerglass Window Systems (www.stormwindows.com) which looks like a good product, though may be as pricey as Anderson. Check it out!
I just have to ask… Why is A.C.O.R.N. included in this rant-fest?
All we do is try to help people through the process to get tax credits. We don’t make or enforce any rules regarding historic districts. As for corruption… perhaps the writer refers to that “other” ACORN. We’re way too poor to be corrupt (in spite of some attempts by developers in the past).
And… do not assume that A.c.O.R.N. is in any way connected with Jennie Dotts as she left her staff position with the organization two years ago.
Nick: I understand your concern about the appearance of the exterior storms. I believe that, in this case, the intent of the historic district design guidelines is to ensure the retention of historic fabric (i.e., the historic windows). Please consider that any new windows that you put on the house would never match the quality and durability of the old-growth wood of your existing windows, and would likely have a warranty of 25 years – and the old windows have lasted probably 100+ years with varying degrees of maintenance. Anyway, Allied windows makes a very good interior storm, and they do offer operable varieties. Also, Thermo-Press is another company, and they are located here in Richmond. Hope this helps!
Hi Melinda,
I’ve met David (of A.C.O.R.N) and couldn’t picture him as the fanatic, extreme selfish and civic terrorist type.
Obviously they did not know of what they speak 🙂
#38/Melinda:
“And… do not assume that A.c.O.R.N. is in any way connected with Jennie Dotts as she left her staff position with the organization two years ago.”
Is that meant as a statement of fact or a partially veiled diatribe against Ms. Dotts?
Is ACORN going the way of HRF?
http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&a
Sorry to duplicate Jennie’s statement, I don’t think it was posted at the time when I wrote my message or I wouldn’t have leveled my $0.02.
Thank you all who have responded to my post! I’ll contact Jennie and explore the other products mentioned here. I appreciate all the help and your perspectives. I’m glad to hear that there may be an end in sight to our noise woes.
i had the same problem with CAR and my windows, except my windows were ROTTEN and i still had to get them repaired instead of replaced. i wasn’t allowed to get new wood windows that looked EXACTLY the same as the old ones. repairing “historic” windows is quite expensive, and coincidentally completely hilarious. there is no possible way to tell the difference between an old window and a new window that is located on THE 2ND FLOOR of my house. you would have to look really closely. and if you were looking that closely, you would also notice that the calendar above my desk says the year is 2009. um, hi? it’s the 21st century, in case no one noticed. i’m all for keeping things historic around here. it’s why i bought a house up in this piece, yo. but it’s things like this that make me want to chew bibles and use the resulting waste to build new window frames for each CAR member.
the next time i have to have a rotting window repaired with some kind of putty instead of getting a new exact-replica window, i’m going to smash said historic window with a large historic hammer. and THEN i can get a new window.
Window:
If the windows on your house were repairable, then they must not have deteriorated beyond the point of being salvageable. Your statement that the windows were “rotten” is difficult to gauge, as this is a subjective term and means different things to different people. What is “rotten” to a layman viewing an old window may not be at all rotten to someone with expertise in window restoration. Also, window repair is not always more expensive than window replacement, just as “new” is not always “better”. Again, it depends on the degree of deterioration that the window has suffered.
But it is a shame that the home-owner is not able to make that decision, that by moving into an O&H, he has surrrendered that decision to others, who don’t pay the bills for their decisions.
It seems when you buy a house in Church Hill you are buying a museum piece along with a curator. I was very surpised to see all the pushback on this thread regarding CAR and O&H status. I now see why.
IF it truly were a museum piece with a curator, then public or foundation dollars would support the preservation. In the case of CAR, they want to dictate to the property owner how he or she will spend private dollars, regardless of the fiscal impact. You did sign on for this when you bought in an O & H, but I’ll bet your agent didn’t tell you that.