Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Part 1: So What Was Going with that Historic District and Council?

I apologize for any errors in the following narration. I have been patiently waiting for the minutes of the January 14, 2008, Pueblo City Council meeting to be posted on the City’s web site, but they are still not there.

Monday, January 14, 2008, Pueblo City Council was presented with a proposed historic district to be called the North Side Historic District. It has approximately 35 properties. The district boundaries had already been redrawn to accommodate people who protested being included.

After “testimony” was heard, Council then discussed the issue and decided that before the District could be finalized, every property owner had to agree to be included with an affidavit. This is not in Pueblo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.  This goes way beyond the noticing that the City was required to do and did do. This is called “changing the rules so your opponent can’t score.”

Personally, I think the whole thing was quite likely manipulated by parties with other agendas. I won’t say it was exactly pre-planned or orchestrated, but under the circumstances, it would be very easy to manipulate.

Background:

An Historic Architecture Survey was conducted by Historitecture, LLC, on the North Side of Pueblo between 10th and 18th Streets, roughly I-25 to Craig. The idea of creating an historic district in this area has been discussed since at least 2001 and the survey itself started up in 2005. The survey was paid for with grants and its purpose was to discover what properties would likely be eligible for historic landmarking and whether or not there were areas that could be designated as historic districts. Approximately 347 properties were surveyed. The North Side Historic Architecture Survey Report was reviewed and approved by experts in the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO, pronounced “shippo”) because it provided one of the grants.

The consultant found about 24 individual structures that were recommended as having enough physical integrity (i.e., they hadn’t changed) and historicity to be individually landmarked on the National Register, and 43 were recommended as candidates for individual listing on Pueblo’s Register of Cultural Resources. He also found two areas where the buildings as a group had enough integrity to be designated as Historic Districts: One that ran roughly along 18th Street between Mineral Palace Park and West Street, and another surrounding the Rosemount Mansion. These two districts included buildings which would not qualify for individual landmarking, but which would nevertheless be considered contributing to an historic district.

The Old Historic Northside Organization, the neighborhood association which covers the areas included in the recommended historic districts, decided to sponsor the applications for the districts and Historic Pueblo, Inc., agreed to pay the fees.

The application for the North Side District along 18th Street was written up and submitted per the Historitecture’s recommendations. Volunteers went door-to-door with literature about the proposed district and they carried letters of support for residents to sign if they wished. Every door was knocked on at least once. The literature included a brochure with information about the district, and where to get more information from the City’s web site, where the entire report was posted. They were given City Staff’s phone number to call with questions. They also received a Frequently Asked Questions sheet (with answers, of course) and a flyer with pros and cons of historic districts.

In addition to preliminary meetings, one or two meetings were held after the nomination was submitted where owners and residents could ask questions of City Staff.

As required in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, each property owner was sent a notice of the Historic Preservation Commission Hearing which also included pro and con information.  Approximately five property owners protested and the boundaries of the district were re-drawn by Staff and Staff recommended the new boundaries to the Historic Preservation Commission, which were approved. This action reduced the number of properties from 61 to 35. Four members voted in favor, two were absent, and the seventh recused herself because she owns property in the district and might benefit financially because of the district.

The proposed district sailed through Planning and Zoning, which reviews these things, and went to City Council. One P&Z member recused himself because he owned property in the proposed district.

The Historic District was the last item on the agenda for the City Council meeting on January 14, 2008. The Staff Report, given by Jerry Pacheco, included the statement that it “anything can be over-noticed, this was,” and that approval was recommended, since no one protested the existing boundaries.

Councilman Thurston verified that his property was no longer included and that it would be okay for him to remain and participate.

The application signer, Susan Pelto, presented an overview, with justification for historic districts and justification for this particular district. She also explained that a building could “contribute” to an historic district even though it might not qualify for an individual landmark. She asked audience members to stand to indicate their support. Most of the people in the audience stood.

Other people spoke in favor, including Laurel Campbell, President of Historic Pueblo, Inc., and a local real estate agent.

Then two people spoke against. They complained about not getting enough information,  that their insurance might be dropped, that their insurance might cost more, why did there have to be a district, etc. They had appeared at the HPC hearing and said the same things, and more, which was dropped from this, probably because their original statements didn’t apply. Both of these individuals had already complained to the City and their properties were removed from the District. None of their arguments dealt with this particular district, but with the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Code) and historic districts in general.

After the “for” and “against” testimony the CIty Council discussed the action. Thurston offered an amendment which would require City Staff to contact each owner with pros and cons and obtain written affidavits consenting to being included in the district. If they didn’t sign, they wouldn’t be included. Thurston basically said he wanted to see 100% opt-in.  They’d have 30 days to get the mailing out, and six months before the district was finalized. This amendment passed 4-3 and the amended ordinance passed, 5-2.

Why I think this all was a set-up, manipulated for some other purpose:

1) People asked questions, but didn’t wait for answers. Weaver wanted to know how much additional code enforcement money would be required, but didn’t wait for Pacheco to answer before moving on. Nor did she even ask if anyone had studied that possible impact. Vidmar said the fiscal impact on the City couldn’t possibly be zero, as the Staff report indicated, but again, did not wait for Pacheco’s explanation, nor ask if a study had been conducted. A couple of people asked why all the properties couldn’t be individually landmarked, but didn’t wait for answers and totally ignored the fact that Mrs. Pelto had already given them one or two reasons in her earlier testimony. In other words, they didn’t want to hear anything that would contradict their pre-conceived notions, even though they aren’t supposed to have any before the hearing.

2) Weaver was too quick in seconding Mr. Thurston’s motion to amend. It was as if she was waiting for it, like a member of a ‘tag-team’ at some World Wrestling Federation event.

3) Further, the amendment itself was peculiar, since a man of Mr. Thurston’s experience should know that you never ask for 100% agreement on something like this, because you’re never going to get it.  “Opt out” is the preferred method if you feel the need. A certain percentage of the population is apathetic, and they don’t care one way or the other. Not to mention the difficulties of contacting owners who may not even live in the community.

4) The Colorado Historical Society has reviewed various other municpal ordinances for historic district preservation requirements. Their review shows that the highest percentage of owner consent required in other communities to establish an historic district is 75%. Perhaps the most realistic is the community that requires 40% consent, but the district is a no-go if 40% object.

5) Mr. Thurston’s amendment was offered to “resolve the conflict” although the conflict was raised by people who already had what they wanted—out of the district—and who claimed to be there for “people who didn’t understand,” despite all the meetings, door-to-door solicitation, signed letters and petitions, and even though they, themselves, supposedly did understand.

6) In fact, considering Mr. Thurston is a real estate person , he should have been strongly swayed in favor of the district by the fact that historically designated properties tend to hold their value better, and generally increase in value over similar un-designated properties.

7) While Weaver was extremely concerned about the possible additional costs of code enforcement, she was not troubled in the least by the costs of (again) contacting owners with pro/con information, the legal costs of preparing the affidavit, collecting the affidavits, etc.

8) The North Side Historic District and the OHNO neighborhood are both in District 1, represented by Judy Weaver. Yet she sided with the two complainers rather than the larger number of people present who favored the district.

The most vocal opposition came from Weaver, Vidmar and Thurston. They seemed to buy into the complainers statement that they were there because they were afraid some people really didn’t understand all the consequences and hadn’t been given enough information. This is typical of people who cannot imagine others disagreeing with their stance. I cannot imagine any other situation where this would be allowed when proper notice had been given. In most cases the response is “you understood the communication, and your neighbor is just as capable.”

They also seemed to buy into the argument that insurance would be dropped or raised, even though Laurel Campbell addressed this in her testimony just as competently as the complainers did. Puebloans are more likely to lose their coverage because of the number of hail storms in recent years.

As a side note, while a couple of companies will drop coverage for landmarked properties, this has not been a major issue. Gary Trujillo, who has been active in historic preservation for years and probably knows more about it than anybody else in town, had never before heard that it was even a minor problem.
9) No opposing arguments were made regarding the merits of the district itself: whether it was historic or had good integrity. The only arguments were actually against the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Weaver commented that “it must not have been very well thought out.” (Although it was also obvious that Weaver has not actually read it.) What was not thought out was the amendment, which stated that all the property owners had to be contacted in order to obtain their consent, which includes those properties which have already been landmarked and have nothing material to lose or gain in the district designation.

What might have been the purpose behind the manipulation?
Remember that there is a second district in the wings. This district surrounds Rosemount and includes property owned by Parkview Medical Center. Both Vidmar  and Weaver  have served on Parkview’s Board of Directors. In fact, Weaver was on Parkview’s Board of Directors when it demolished one of the Thatcher homes in 2003, bulldozing it the Saturday before it was to be declared a landmark property, without turning off the natural gas, removing asbestos or performing any sort of architectural salvage. This caused a huge amount of ill-feeling in the neighborhood, the historic preservation community in Pueblo and quite a few other folks who just didn’t like it. By setting a precedent requiring consent of owners, it is guaranteed that Parkview won’t have any of its property included in the Rosemount Historic District. The Rosemount Historic District nomination is still being developed and the final boundaries to this district have not been determined. People may not realize that the only Parkview property left in it at this time is the Beaumont House, a building that is already landmarked and protected by the Ordinance.

How might the manipulation have occurred?

If you’ve ever seen a master at manipulation at work, you know that it can be very easy. Given that you already had two very vocal people in opposition, who had given paper documents to Council, it would be very easy to say, “You know, you have some very good thoughts on this, but I really think you need to come to the hearing to express them. The other Council members don’t always have time to read everything.” Thus the conflict that needed to be resolved could be set up.

Less...