Me too. As someone with a small, unrenovated 1948 house who bought with the goal of eventually renovating and (tastefully) enlarging, I don’t want to be told I can’t do that by people who already have!

Naturally, many of the codes could use some updating, but there are some troubling parts about these proposals regarding control and to whom it is granted. Rather than use incentives, which a smart government would do, the city wants to control people’s actions via restrictions. The conservation district would delay demolition and subject your plans to a public hearing. So the neighbors get to have control over my development now? They have no idea what’s in my family’s best interest and who knows what their agenda is. You can’t get 3 people to agree on which is the best ice cream flavor or movie, if they even like them. Good luck with that, it will create a lot of bickering. And how much will this delay cost me? The city wants to keep tabs on homeowners to see if they’re maintaining their houses? What if conditions changed and they can’t afford it or the house isn’t worth it? Who benefits from this? The tree ordinance would lock your property in place via conservation easements and only represents the interests of certain special interests. An arborist would regularly inspect the city’s streets and private properties for canopy growth. All of this government monitoring is not cheap, either.

Nothing is broken right now. If the city wants to encourage preservation, they should start with public lands and only approach the private side via incentives. People will happily volunteer to do things to help their communities when feasible; even more so if they personally gain. The moment you try to force people to do things with a heavy hand, you’ve broken the social contract everyone refers to. That is not what a progressive government does. So is this really about preservation or certain interests gaining control?

I’m no expert, either, but it’d be interesting to see a financial model based on the changes. Either way, couple that with the proposed tree ordinance, and you really won’t ever be able to remodel your house, whether due to cost or space. The result will instate 2 divergent house categories: those that are already fully built out as desired and those that aren’t. I can’t see buyers flocking to invest in a remodel they’re stuck with as-is. As a result, property values for unfinished remodels would definitely go down, which really hurts the city’s overwhelmingly residential-heavy tax revenues. So much for affording your school bond referendum. For those who can sell their fixer uppers, the developers, who can afford to pay whatever fees, will gladly snap up the houses at lower cost and build as they please. Following your lead: Trees 2, Homeowners -1 (for loss of value). That’s why I think it’s odd there isn’t a cost benefit analysis or any financial detail provided; I bet they know homeowners wouldn’t buy it.

I’d be interested to see how many of the commissioners and supporters of these proposals have remodeled their house or had tree work performed over the last couple years to set themselves up nicely…

Also, I thought we had an annexation war to attend to. Why is that not priority #1 right now? Who in their right mind would add in all of these unilateral rule changes and restrictions right before the game begins and before the players have picked teams? For all of Decatur’s amenities, the idea that extreme special interests are in control would definitely scare me away, especially considering the developments in other areas.