While I’m not against getting some kind of gauge of public support for a historic district, I am wary about creating some sort of precedent where a neighborhood is polled before information about historic districts can be properly disseminated (ie. the fact that everyone thinks that paint color will be regulated when it would not). Additionally, polls are very easily skewed based on how questions are worded and how/when the poll is taken. I’m afraid it could become a misused political tool for both sides of the issue. So I’m skeptical.

I don’t quite understand the use of “lots of city staff and resources” argument. As far as I can deduce, it is the neighborhood that should be doing a large majority of the work to create a nomination, using the HPC and city staff as a resource to guide them along the right path. While there seems to have been talk to apply for funds to pay to survey the neighborhood, this doesn’t have to be the case. Old Decatur used college students to do their survey and create their design guidelines pro-bono. Even if a nomination goes beyond the submission stage, the length of time wouldn’t really affect city staff since they only advise, review and schedule meetings.

In regards to time limits on voting for or against a nomination, I don’t have a problem with giving a set amount of time for a nomination to be reviewed. As long as the rule stipulated that if the HPC desired and communicated modifications, the time frame would be reset. When was the original, smaller Oakhurst nomination submitted? How long did it take the HPC to respond? I can’t find the submission date in the minutes. If it was never submitted, the length of time isn’t the HPC’s fault and no ordinance stipulation would be able to require private residents to hurry up with their survey and nomination. Additionally, I don’t think the Great Lakes has ever even submitted a nomination for a LHD, so the long, drawn out process there seems again be the neighborhood’s issue.

In regards to the moratorium, I believe the HPC consulted with the city attorney before suggesting it to the city commission and it was OKed, correct? Is that reason enough to condemn the HPC? I think the city commission rejected it, not because it was illegal, but because of public pressure.

I understand the general shock to the suggestion of enlarging the Oakhurst district, but it also should be understood that this was only a recommendation and not written law. It was recommended because the smaller district had no historical precedent. I don’t see how trying to create a more legally defensible district is a discredit to them. A lot of HPC’s wouldn’t even pick up on a subtlety like that and would just allow any Tom, Dick or Harry with enough support to create a district that may just suit individual needs.

The city commission may have sent a message to the HPC with last night’s meeting but it can’t literally “shut them down” as was the topic of my original post. It can only restrict use of its staff…but that doesn’t prevent the nomination from going forward if proponents can keep it alive. The HPC isn’t staff, they’re volunteers.

The HPC already voted against the original district boundaries and won’t go back to that.

In the end, the HPC only advises the city commission as to whether of not the district is historic. I don’t believe that anything about that is “defiance”. It’s the city commission’s job to create the district, not HPC.

I appreciate the discourse OneOakhurst.

Second, there are no time limits in the current ordinance that says that a vote of the HPC must take place after so many days or months of the nomination of a local historic district. For example, the ordinance can say that if the HPC does not take a vote within 180 days of the nomination, the nomination dies. As we have seen with Great Lakes and Oakhurst, these things can go on ad nauseam without the HPC ever taking a vote. The City must put a stop to this.

As far as the HPC being “unfairly slandered” that cannot be further from the truth. Without any input from the City Commission, back in April, the HPC attempted to put a moritorium on demolitions in Oakhurst even though the law did not allow them to do so. They City Commission, rightly, shut them down. Last month, without any input from anyone, they decided to quadruple the size of the proposed Oakhurst historic district. The City Commission, rightly, shut them down again. The HPC needed to be checked by the city commission and I applaud them for doing so.

Now the HPC has a choice. They can either defy the will of the city commission and go forward on the historic district as they have proposed. Or they can go back and vote in favor of a smaller district they are on record as saying is legally indefensible.