Reader Request: Historic red tape?
Cottonwoodbeach has something to get off his/her chest:
Consider some of the coolest buildings in town and you'll notice a lot of them were restored. I don't know what kind of wreck they were but they're pretty nice now. There's the Warehouse Apartments, the Metropolitan Opera House (now apartments), the Freighthouse Apartments, etc. The Herald building was butt-ugly right after the flood, but it looks pretty cool now.
The question you're asking, Cottonwoodbeach, is where the balance lies between heritage and cost. I'm not sure how much more it costs to build around here because of the commission -- you readers can tell me -- but I haven't heard any complaints yet.
Full disclosure: One of my colleagues, Marsha Gunderson, chairs the commission. But I'd feel the same otherwise.
Update 8:14 p.m., 6/26/06: I had a brief chat with Marsha today. She says you could blow up your historically significant home and she wouldn't have the power to stop you. The Historical Preservation Commission only has control if you use federal funds (which sometimes goes through the state or the city) to blow up the house. Unless you know something I don't, that sounds pretty fair. You use government money, the government gets to tell you what to do.
Update 8:22 p.m., 6/26/06: Looks like the commission's Peg O'Leary beat me to the punch. Check out her comments. I hope this teaches us all a lesson about getting too far ahead of the facts.
Any thoughts on the City Historical Preservation Commission? I would be interested to see a blog entry or newspaper article about what exactly their contribution has been to the progress or lack of progress by the city. It seems that the commission is holding back a number of business and residential property owners from making changes to their properties, which has the effect of increasing the cost of making changes or preventing the changes from being made. An example showed up in their most recent meeting. During discussion about a proposed teardown of the Transport, Inc. building, one of the commission members became concerned that the teardown of the building might make way for something "new and hideous". As opposed to the crap pile that is already Gateway?Aw, don't be so hard on these guys. Their charter is to protect the city's historic heritage. What you were reading is the commission deliberating about whether certain buildings deserve to be protected. That's important because there's always the possibility that the "pile of crap" could be restored and converted into something worthwhile.
Consider some of the coolest buildings in town and you'll notice a lot of them were restored. I don't know what kind of wreck they were but they're pretty nice now. There's the Warehouse Apartments, the Metropolitan Opera House (now apartments), the Freighthouse Apartments, etc. The Herald building was butt-ugly right after the flood, but it looks pretty cool now.
The question you're asking, Cottonwoodbeach, is where the balance lies between heritage and cost. I'm not sure how much more it costs to build around here because of the commission -- you readers can tell me -- but I haven't heard any complaints yet.
Full disclosure: One of my colleagues, Marsha Gunderson, chairs the commission. But I'd feel the same otherwise.
Update 8:14 p.m., 6/26/06: I had a brief chat with Marsha today. She says you could blow up your historically significant home and she wouldn't have the power to stop you. The Historical Preservation Commission only has control if you use federal funds (which sometimes goes through the state or the city) to blow up the house. Unless you know something I don't, that sounds pretty fair. You use government money, the government gets to tell you what to do.
Update 8:22 p.m., 6/26/06: Looks like the commission's Peg O'Leary beat me to the punch. Check out her comments. I hope this teaches us all a lesson about getting too far ahead of the facts.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 9:31 PM
22 Comments:
I'm a big fan of the commission and its mission. Historic preservation is a necessity. It's a shame how many truly historic buildings we have lost in historic neighborhoods of Grand Forks.
I do, however, think that the commission is wasting their time if they attempt to thwart the effort to demolish several derelict buildings on Gateway Drive. These buildings were never that great to start with, they aren't all that old, and I doubt that any developer would be willing to invest in restoring a property that has no likely tenants. In my opinion, they just aren't "historic" enough or worth preservation. What would we be preserving...the status quo of Gateway Drive? That's nothing that I want to see preserved.
Overall, though, I appreciate all that the commission has done for our city. We must preserve our truly historic buildings if we wish to preserve our rich heritage.
I suppose GFHPC is like any other government entity...the good things they do tend to outweigh the idiotic things, and unless you have personally had a negative experience, you tend to think, on balance, everything is ok.
Here's something to keep in mind. Much of the affordable single family housing in the city that comes up for sale is in the area between downtown and south to 17th Avenue or so. Many of these properties are affordable because they are small and in average condition. If a family moves into that house and wants to renovate for comfort or to add value to the property, the HPC will step in and make sure that the new windows and doors are solid wood (3x cost), vinyl or steel are not involved in the project (that means no painting without scraping old lead-based stuff), nothing can be removed unless adding like materials back to the property, (there goes that insulating/residing project again) and that the family understands that even though they own the property, the HPC mandate trumps their rights as a property owner.
End result is, the family finds one of the very few affordable houses in town, and it has to remain looking run-down because the HPC required materials can't be afforded by the family because of the $3500 annual utility bill, and the $2200 annual tax bill for the 1200 square foot house.
These situations happen to real people. I guess who you sympathise with in that situation is a matter of perspective. In my perspective, families are more important than history.
I wouldn't want to live in the new Opera House place. No matter how nice they are, they are still two doors down from the porn shop.
Are there no zoning laws in GF? This is a serious question. Ever notice that the largest sign in downtown is for the Plain Brown Wrapper (which is sort of ironic, don't you think?).
I was amazed at the price of the Opera House apartments. For a single bedroom apartment, located so close to the train tracks that one can actually step out the kitchen window onto the top of the trains blaring by, costs $680 per month, plus utilities. For a space this small, I would have expected something below $500 based on past experiences with rents around town as well as the usual requirement to off-set negative aspects such as close trains and the neighborhood.
I'm curious if this inflated pricetag is due to HPC requirements, based on what cottonwoodbeach has stated. This particular apartment definitely was not worth $680+
Great point cottonwoodbeach, it is very difficult to strike a good balance however, I often find it sad to see a landowner who is renting a property use the cheapest possible route to update a home that has significant historical value. Case in point drive by 909 North 3rd St. and then drive by 1601 Lewis Blvd. You will see that these two homes were at one time essentially the same home, but they are now very different because of their renovations.
I also agree with Coffee Guy, Tu-uyen I wish this were brought to light by our local paper...
dadingf, you make a great point. Business owners, such as landlords, should be held to a slightly higher standard, I think, than a private property owner. Still, at the point where historical preservation begins to be a boot on the neck of an entire section of the city, like the entire north section of GF, it is bound to stifle progress. The mission of the HPC is to preserve a historical CONTEXT for future generations to appreciate and learn from, and to serve the community to that end. Our HPC seems to be crying out for legitimacy by challenging every proposal in their purview. I'd be really curious to see them put under a microscope to see if their 'scope creep' is hurting Grand Forks more than it is helping.
Thanks for the comments!
People, people, people.
I throw you a red hot story about landfills going up wherever and all the chatter is about the Historic Preservation Commission?
Well, if I gotta launch an expose into the HPC, I guess I'll give it a shot. Cottonwood made a good case with affordable housing. Sounds like he/she knows the situation firsthand or knows someone who does.
Any of you, Cottonwood included, see an example where a family's been denied permission to renovate their home? E-mail me directly if you're concerned about privacy.
Why shouldn't the owner of a historic home have to be a little more careful when renovating it? If it wasn't for the HPC's requirements for historic homes, we would have already lost the historic charm and look of many local homes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
To over simplify, isn't this more like how the process works? The property owner submits their property for historic designation, it meets the qualifications, it's accepted, they enjoy tax advantages for the designation, then they have to adhere to the parameters of the historic designation? Like I said, I'm simplifying. Is that in a nut shell how it goes down?
It's not a case where some demon agency swoops in and tells you what you can and can't do with your property.
You are correct. That is oversimplified. If you live in an 'historic district', your home can be considered by an 'expert' to be 'contributing to an historic district'. In this way, through no action of your own, and often without your knowledge, you can become subject to covenants and restrictions. Many of the houses in my neighborhood (near south side/downtown) are listed in the National Register of Historic Places as 'contributing' properties, and are not individually registered.
One can certainly make themselves subject to restrictions by applying for grants, etc., but most owners of properties in town that are subject to the HPCs meddling don't know their homes are subject, and many wouldn't want them to be if they did.
Oh, and there are no tax advantages to subjecting your property to historical convenants. It's a feel good thing, baby.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I couldn't agree more David. The HPC should be working with property owners before things get ugly. Unfortunately, the HPC in Grand Forks makes things ugly as soon as they get involved. I would encourage you to read the meeting minutes available on the website just to get a sense of the kinds of things they argue about with indivudal property owners. It's ridiculous on a regular basis.
I completely agree with everything you wrote. I agree with the mission and I am encouraged by the results the GFHPC has achieved downtown and elsewhere in the city. However my rights as an individual property owner trump theirs every day of the week. I think they need to be reminded of that fact.
If they want to pay my mortgage, I'll happily put up the cash to renovate my historic home properly. Otherwise I have to do what I have to do within my means.
God, are you reading my mind?! The entire north end of GF needs to be encouraged in some way to rehabilitate entire neighborhoods. I don't know what that is, but historical preservation and its concommitant x3 cost is probably not on the radar. A bad paint job is about as much as many of those owners can afford, or that those landlords would even consider given the low rent income and high taxes.
Now, if the HPC worked with representatives from those neighborhoods to find grants and funding for improvements that furthered their goal of preservation, and at the same time improving property values (and the tax-base), I think that would be win-win. I'm afraid the horse is too high for them to see that, though.
Good stuff! Tu-uyen I will be e-mailing you.
Tu-Uyen: Please let me clarify how the Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission becomes involved in rehabilitation projects. The Commission only reviews projects that are funded with FEDERAL money. Homeowners in Grand Forks, who are using their own funds, are not required to follow any Commission guidelines or appear before the Commission to work on their homes. However, if the homeowner wishes to use federal funds for renovation he or she is required by federal law to show that the proposed changes will not affect the historic integrity of the house or the neighborhood and that the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation will be followed during the renovation.
Aren't there always strings attached when we want to use someone else's money?
Peg O'Leary
Coordinator, GFHPC
What about buildings with historic covenants? How do those people fit into this discussion?
Would that it were that simple, Ms. O'Leary.
A couple of addendums to dadingf's question.
And owners of homes which contribute to historic districts?
And owners of homes which had covenants under previous owners? My neighbor is in such a situation.
And owners of homes that were previously owned by the city and placed under covenants before being sold to the highest bidder?
I understand that if you take grants, you have obligations. I have a particularly unique situation that applies to only a handful of property owners in Grand Forks. I didn't take grants, and I didn't benefit from the grants that were used to mitigate my house. The city of Grand Forks did.
Ah, the plot thickens...
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this. I supposed the affordable housing argument still stands, though the impact on the city is pretty minimal since so few properties are affected.
On the other hand, those covenants were there already when you decided to buy the house.
As an aside, I forgot to mention the other thing Marsha said. She said the reason HPC slowed down demo of the derelict building was because there was no documentation one way or the other about it's historic value. The commission just wanted the owners to do some homework first, she said.
So was it the CDBG funding that caused their intercession or were they just 'doing the right thing'? Are there FEDERAL funds in play here? I'm unclear on that point.
I don't know the exact number, but I believe it is 29 properties that were mitigated and resold by the city after the flood, almost all of which could be purchased and fixed up to move-in condition for under 100k. Compared to the number of homes in town, sure this is minimal. But tell me this: what would Grand Forks do to get 29 young families to take up residence in these homes? What would Grand Forks do to provide 29 homes for those families at sub six-figure prices? When in the last five years has Grand Forks had more than 10 homes available at those price levels? And as far as attracting the people, according to the MPO and the census bureau, splitting the difference, it might take FIVE YEARS to get that kind of windfall.
That is just to make the point that minimal numbers don't necessarily equate to minimal impacts. Affordable housing is an issue.
The covenants are there when you buy the house, sure. But whether homeowners know about them is another issue entirely. HPC knows where the covenants are. And they'll be sure to let you know when you violate them.
Several items have come into the discussion but each has one thing in common: federal funds.
Regarding covenants on homes: the houses were purchased after the flood with federal funds. If the house was more than 50 years old, mitigation required that covenants be placed on the properties upon resale. Advertising included full disclosure of the "historic covenants" attached to the property.
Regarding the proposed demolition of a building on Gateway Drive: a CDBG funded city program would pay a large percentage of the demolition costs.
Contributing properties in a historic district: Grand Forks has NO regulations attached specifically to contributing properties in historic districts. As Marsha said, if you're not using federal funds the Commission has no say.
Peg O'Leary
Coordinator, GFHPC
Thanks Peg!
Post a Comment
<< Home