The Lindsay City Council took another step forward at the July 8 regular Council meeting when it refused to give direction to the city’s staff regarding historic preservation. While the Sun-Gazette’s article made it sound like the Council was indeterminate, actually they were holding firm against an attempt by staff to squelch community interest and involvement in the shape of our downtown.
In early June, without the knowledge
of at least four of the five Council members, the city staff sent a 2-page
letter to all property owners within the Central Business District asking “if
you desire an historic district” at this time.
The letter briefly described what that might include, and the potential
impacts on their properties.
The letter also included a
two-question survey which the property owners were encouraged to return, noting
the survey’s results would be presented at the July 8 Council meeting. The letter indicated that if the majority of
those property owners answered “no,” the matter would be laid to rest until
some future time. (This letter can be viewed in the Council agenda packet for
July 8, either at the library, city hall, or online at www.lindsay.ca.us under Council Agendas. After the initial posting of this blog, the historic preservation "initiative" was added to the City's website.)
The staff was clearly giving veto
power to property owners, regardless of the Council’s response to the
survey. No one else was surveyed, such
as business owners, who might have a greater interest in the benefits of
historic preservation than property owners, who might bear some of the
costs. Forget the residents of the
community, whose lives are shaped by the quality of the environment we live in.
One sentence near the end of the
letter showed their hand. Before
encouraging property owners to return the survey as soon as possible, a
sentence underlined for emphasis read: “Do
not leave this important decision to activists or other special interest groups.” At the Council meeting, Councilman Mecum
asked City Manager Rich Wilkinson, who signed the letter and said he was its
author, to give his definition of “activists and special interest groups.” After thinking a moment, Rich replied “Those
who put their opinions over something they don’t have any say in.”
Apparently that moment wasn’t long
enough for a quality answer, because at the end of the meeting Rich asked to modify
it. After pausing much longer, he said
“I think I need to give clarification on my definition of an activist ... for
Mr. Mecum. You caught me off guard! So you got a real quick shot there, but you
know really it’s someone that’s promoting their, or promotes social change
that’s close to their … beliefs system.
And sometimes it infringes on those other rights that other individuals
have that are important to them as well.
“In this case the activist is that
who is promoting a social change in respect to some of these personal property
rights. So there’s my reference
there.” To which Mecum replied “Cool.”
Historic preservation is much more a
public concern than private property owners’.
Historic preservation gets its energy from the recognition that preserving
a community’s history, its physical record of existence in a place, is a
community value to be weighed with property values. It usually is instituted to balance the
private property owners’ rights with the community’s needs for belonging, for
maintaining a sense of place. This is
something the public very much has a say in, and the staff’s attempt to exclude
us from the discussion is shameful. Kudos
to the Council for refusing to buy in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy
Wischemann is a carpenter’s daughter who loves old buildings more than new
ones. You can send her your thoughts on
historic places c/o P.O. Box 1374, Lindsay CA 93247 or leave a comment below.
No comments:
Post a Comment