The reason most of have fought this proposal is not because we are opposed to historic preservation. The reason we have fought it is because we are opposed to the misuse of the Historic Preservation Code to regulate infill and believe that the process of attempting to create the Oakhurst Historic District was heavy handed, secretive and not well thought out.

Ultimately, we believe that the misuse of the Historic Preservation Code hurts the cause of preserving truly historic buildings in Decatur. And it has in the case of the Oakhurst Historic District proposal. Not only has it made people distrust the system, but in the nearly one year of debating this proposal, we could have unified around trying to protect truly historic buildings such as our many historic schools, churches, and other structures (yes, including the football stadium) that remain unprotected. We could have unified around creating voluntary programs and incentives to renovate older homes rather than build new and create incentives for homeowners and builders to build new houses that are compatible with their surroundings.

But instead, because of the efforts of 2 or 3 neighborhood activists trying to impose their will on an unwilling neighborhood, and unwilling to compromise, time has passed and we will certainly lose the football stadium. Many other truly historic buildings in Decatur remain unprotected and deserve to be so.

As I’ve responded before, I don’t think I qualify as “pro-Oakhurst historic district” because I don’t ultimately believe that protecting the whole neighborhood was either prudent or physically possible. Also, I don’t think that residents in favor of the district went about things in the right way because, whether its true or not, many residents believed this district was sprung and forced upon them. That’s no way to approach ANY issue.

However, in general when conditions call for it, I do lean toward supporting preservation. In this case, my “punches” weren’t directed specifically at those that oppose the Oakhurst LHD, but at those that have it in for preservation across the whole city. I don’t live in Oakhurst, haven’t followed the day-to-day drama, and don’t claim to by any sort of authority on that neighborhood. It really ain’t really a concern to me from a NIMBY standpoint.

My rather snide remarks therefore are directed at those that have begun the assault on preservation throughout the city. The argument is no longer just about Oakhurst. Whatever you guys wanna do, peace be with you and maybe one day you’ll be on speaking terms again. But when you talk about revising the ordinance, and laughing at the HPC, now you’re dealing with the whole city. This movement DOES affect me. So, I believe its only fair to try and give preservation a fair shake. You’ve got 8 months of postings arguing against it. You shouldn’t feel threatened by a few punches sent from a new, random and poorly-focused blog!

Finally, I want to point out that when it comes to “aura of neutrality” we both seem to be pretty good at it. Your blog states “ONE Oakhurst is a place where we can openly debate the proposal to create an Oakhurst Historic District. Designating a portion of Oakhurst as a historic district impacts all Oakhurst and Decatur residents and all voices need to heard. Comments on this blog are unmoderated.”

While your blog is unmoderated (and that should be applauded) it is obvious from your entries (jail time for the elderly residents that can’t build their own craftsman style handicap ramps! – this is obvious exaggeration but should get the point across) that not all voices are being heard or supported equally on it.

The replacement of the old football stadium was also anticipated in the city’s bond referendum which passed a year ago. At least a year of planning and meetings went into that. But a few days before the wrecking ball, she writes an oped? Also, neither you or Ms. Estes, in her oped, mention that one of the main reasons that the old Decatur High Stadium is inadequate is because when it was built, the school system did not conceive that females would actually play sports on the field some day. There are no restroom or changing facilities for females at the old stadium. The new stadium will incorporate facilities for both male and female athletics, in conformance with laws requiring equal access.

Lastly, you normally try to conceal your pro-Oakhurst historic district bent with the aura of neutrality, but not so much with this one. Maybe the old stadium should have been saved. The Decatur Historic Preservation Code allows individual buildings and structures to be preserved under the ordinance without having to include large areas of the city that do not include historic buildings. This was done with the Old Courthouse, The Scottish Rite Hospital, and others. The old stadium (and other landmarks deemed worth protecting) could be protected under this provision. What saving the old stadium (or other public structurs) has to do with in individual property rights, I have no idea. But you couldn’t resist throwing a punch at people who were opposed to the ill-conceived Oakhurst Historic District, could you?

But I do agree with you on this point: Where was Ms. Estes when her opinion could have mattered?