ISSUE # 25 ... ARBITERS OF ASPEN STYLE AND CHARACTER WANT "DISTRICTS" OF CONTROL
January 25 "Historic Preservation policy does not need public input, but should come from the top down in our government."
(Junee Kirk, Aspen Historic Preservation Task Force member, 1/22/09)
The Ant takes great exception to that response, which addressed Task Force member Mike Maple's question as to how the public will be educated and brought into the process of considering and supporting new historic preservation policies.
The Red Ant attended the meeting of the Historic Preservation Task Force on Thursday, as members considered recommending "Historic District" legislation to Council as part of the upcoming set of proposals. (See Issue #24). We were astounded by the confusing process and lack of rationale or specifics, and the willingness of many members to dictate far-reaching regulations affecting homeowners. What we saw and heard causes us to caution, "Don't be naïve, and think that reason will prevail.If you want your property rights protected, you need to be informed and involved."
Is Your Property Within the "Original Aspen Town Site?"
If your property is in the area bounded by Aspen Mountain, Castle Creek and the Roaring Fork, your neighborhood was proposed as either a "conservation" district or "historic" district on Thursday, but may have narrowly escaped.
The good news is that the proposal to create two regulated "districts" was narrowly defeated (10 to 9) in a preliminary non-binding vote. If two members had not been absent, however, the vote could have easily gone the other way. But it's not over yet. A final vote is expected in several weeks.
Citizens’ comments seemed to be helpful as a reminder to the committee that they are dealing with people’s homes---not textbook theory.
So, What if I Get "Districted?"
Property within the two proposed districts would require a committee review for any exterior changes to your home. Any remodeling would have to meet not only the existing City design standards and code, but satisfy a new citizen review board on their subjective notions of character, mass and scale!
The concept is to have a Historic District in the West End requiring that any changes to any home meet the approval of the Historic Preservation Commission! Any changes to ANY property (old or new) in the West End would be subject to the most stringent district standards in town.
Other properties, not in the West End, but within the Old Town Site boundaries, would be in a "Conservation District," requiring a new 7 person board (2 professionals and 5 community members) to be the arbiters of character, mass and scale for any new construction or improvements you might wish to undertake -- (after you have met the City's existing design guidelines, such as height, windowand door placements, etc., which are not insignificant).
Advocates were asked repeatedly what the difference was in the review standards for a "historic district" and a "conservation district," but the advocates had no answers. Just that one would be more stringent. One member stated that the reviewers would consider questions such as "does this project contribute to the 'sense of history' in this neighborhood?" What does that mean??? Reviews of this type, regulating a "sense of history," sound terribly subjective to The Ant. It surely leads to favoritism, unpredictability and abuse.
Yes, it sounds crazy that half of this citizen task force wants to overlay more regulation and review on top of the existing heavy burden of bureaucratic reviews and regulations. Again, 5 laymen who likely can't read drawings would determine whether the "character" of your home is to their personal taste!!
Perhaps we'd be more sympathetic if the advocates would explain exactly what it is they want to do and why they want to do it.
Why Put Homeowners Through This?
Citizens present and some task force members kept questioning why the additional regulations and districts are needed, asking:
-What is the problem we are trying to address?
-What requirements would be added to the current regulations and why?
-What is inadequate in the current land use regulations?
Fairly basic questions, to which we found few logical answers.
-Some advocates claimed that districts would “level the playing field” so that all homeowners would have to endure the same pain of subjective and burdensome review, presumably eliminating the “target list” concept.
-Some stated that buildings would be regulated to be more in context with neighboring structures. (The Ant feels that the land use code itself should create such equity and context, without relying on additional Historic Preservation regulatory overlays.)
-Chairman Stirling wants to match Crested Butte’s and Telluride’s claims as a “Historic Town” on the city limits sign. (Aspen does not need regulated “districts” to make the claim and paint a sign.)
-The review committee could provide “predictability” for developers by implementing design planning reviews. (The Ant thinks that this sounds like the least predictable method imaginable---a rotating citizen committee reviewing “character.”)
-Others claimed aversions to "mass and scale" and distaste for "variances." When the public asked for specifics, and why Historic Preservation tools were needed to deal with mass and scale of NEW construction, no answers were forthcoming. (Ironically, in truth, mass, scale and height variances are very rare indeed, EXCEPT in the case of historic preservation development incentives which trump the basic code by allowing more F.A.R. and density. Most complaints about mass, reduced setbacks, and lot-line to lot-line building result from the redevelopment of “historic” properties using the current incentives. The way the Ant sees it—any issues with residential mass and scale in Aspen are a direct result of Historic Preservation policy, not the lack of it! )
If mass and scale regulations are the problem, or variances from those regulations, then demonstrate the problem with specifics and address the problem directly with changes to the basic land use code, not indirectly under the guise of "Historic Preservation."
It was clear to The Ant that some Task Force members simply want to stop all changes in Aspen, and through the creation of “districts,” they would gain a powerful tool to do this.
Talk to your Citizen Representatives
As you have a chance to have informal discussions with Task Force members, we urge you to share your perspectives with them.
Members Favoring the New Districts:
Bill Stirling, Joe Myers, Su Lum, Les Holst, Lisa Markalunas, Junee Kirk, Ann Mullins, Yasmine DePagter, Gilbert Sanchez
Members Against the New Districts:
Mike Maple, Marsha Cook, Pam Cunningham, Jack Wilke, LJ Erspamer, Tom Todd, Michael Behrendt, Suzanna Reid, John Kelley, Penney Carruth
Why Property Owners need to Be Informed and Involved
The recommendations of this Task Force are likely to carry significant weight in constructing far-reaching Historic Preservation regulations to be considered by Council this Spring.
If you think that we might be a bit alarmist, talk with some of the owners of the 53 properties still captive to Ordinance #48, who are having to either demolish or extensively and expensively remodel their homes to recover the value of the underlying land, put at risk after Ordinances #30/48.
The next important meeting is likely a few weeks away. We will keep you informed, and suggest that you participate to help protect your property rights, and set the right balance to protect important Aspen historic properties.
What Do You Think?
In the meantime, tell us what you think by taking thisONE QUESTION poll. Would you vote to raise local taxes to have the City buy post-WWII "historic" houses to prevent redevelopment of the property? See top right corner of blog to answer.
And as always, we encourage you to post your comments here. click on the comments bubble below.
Reminder
Comply with the New Carbon Monoxide Detector Law
ALL homes in Aspen and Pitkin County must have CO detectors by March 2. See the new regulations at
http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/Ptk_monoxide_cardFinal.pdf
The Red Ant salutes the Aspen City Council, City and County Staff, Pitkin County Board of Commissions, andEd Van Walraven, Fire Marshal for the Aspen Fire Protection District,for the strong leadership and dedication they have shown to address this issue. They did not allow any bureaucratic delays to the prioritization of this life-saving law. They saw the problem and collectively pushed forward to urgently address it. In doing so, they provided a model of leadership for other communities which are studying their work.
The Ants love the Elks for their commitment to buy and install detectors in seniors' homes! Our apologies for our gaffe in failing to use the Elks "LODGE" as the proper terminology in our previous recognition of their efforts.
Alpine ACE Hardware has been our partner in helping Ant readers acquire detectors hassle-free. Call them at925-3031 for purchase and free delivery.
Comprehensive information on the new CO monitor law will be available at a meeting Wednesday, February 4th at 5:30 in City Hall. If you have responsibilities for property management, you should definitely attend!
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/apps/news/news_item_detail.cfm?NewsItemID=1011
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (13)
What in the world is wrong with these people that they think they can just issue edicts?
Did you know that Junee also has been proposing controlling interiors, and what owners can do with their interior spaces?
We don't think that the Task Force will support this.
I advise ms Junee Kirk to move to North Korea. That is the last country in the world that thinks the way she does.
This comes under the bureaucratic good government principle expressed as:
"Measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a grease pencil and cut it with an axe."
I am disappointed in Junee Kirk...not sure why she has decided to combine left wing politics and dancing lessons.
In the first and final judgment we do after all live in a constitutional democracy, at all levels of government – i.e. democratic decision-making based on the rule of law … law that’s made in the judicial system …not made up as we go along…
I just perused your latest copy of the Red Ant. I understand your concerns, but I was also just talking to a law professors and he had some interesting comments on historic preservation. While affordable housing may be unique to Aspen, historic preservation is not. It might be worthwhile to look at how some comparable cities approach this issue. He said it's an issue lots of places grapple with.
I do believe that in some cases, historic designation has actually increased a property's value. (I think this might have been the case with Sardy House, although I'd have to look more closely at the history there.) This logic holds true enough that in some cases, I believe people in other places are seeking historic designation, but they may be told they DON'T qualify.
All that varies on a case-by-case basis, but I think it might be misleading to suggest that designating historic zones is in some way out of the ordinary or abuse of governmental power. We certainly rely on the government to preserve our resources, whatever they are, in the face special interest groups who might degrade them for personal profit (including private homeowners). We might not have some of our greatest local and national monuments without this tool.
It's a tough balance with the rights of private property owners, and where historic designations (or any zoning) already exists, people seeking to buy property are expected to do their due diligence. It's a different ball of wax for people who already own property, and I think that's where your concerns seem to lie.
But, I think there may be a better way to make your argument than claiming abuse of power on the government's part. I think you might make more headway looking at the specific criteria that might be used. (I remember the officials in Leadville having this exact same debate.)
Here's a link to the National Park System's website for the National Register of Historic Places.
http://www.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm
It lists several factors for determining if a property should be historic: "age and integrity" is one, and they say that 50 years is a general goal (although that probably varies on the recent history of a particular community).
Significance is another—how was this property associated with significant historical events or people.
That's for the national registry. I believe the state historical society has similar requirements. It's probably worth looking at how other communities have gone about this in a manner that's fair for property owners but also to the entire community, who do have a vested interest in preserving certain properties.
Generally speaking, the debate over historic properties arises not from whether it's rational to designate historic places but from which properties that should be.
Thanks for reading!
Admittedly, I have an overall creepy apprehension that our country has lost touch with "Practical Intelligence" aka common sense constitutional concerns and prudent decision-making that allows people to thrive and move forward with their lives. Unregulated abuse which led to self- aggrandizing policies based on runaway greed has caused widespread suffering that Barack Obama, our newly elected president, will attempt to-right using many of the same individuals - facts understood by many but largely igonored - who put us in this economic mess to begin with. It's a veritable keystone-cops run-on-the-banks followed by the same cast of characters who now seek to fix-the-banks, many of which have been deemed unfixable. Doesn't inspire confidence - laughable were it not so pathetically desperate. Bottom line: our country suffers while these disappointing individuals who did not do their jobs, try to make things right. We can all recognize this reality pretty easily. It is upon us.......
Here's another reality to ponder: the town of Aspen appears to be swept up in a similarly disturbing virulent anti-growith agenda that seeks to mandate a panoply of rules determining what individual homeowners can do based on "enlightened-we-know-better" notions from a "Citizens Task Force" some of whom would choose to impose their subjective views on private property rights. Private property, even in Aspen, is already under seize with a depressed real estate market. As if that were not enough, along comes our gang of do-right Citizens who righteously want to complicate property owners rights with additional bureaucratic rules that are really designed to prevent growth in Aspen. They don't even want to let exisiting homeowners make esssential remodel changes without arduous due process that will hurt good people from making changes that homes necessarily require. This kind of proposal takes the wind out of one's sails, when you really take the time to process it.
I winced reading one comment made by an Aspen citizen who would dare make such an uninformed and extreme statement about how our government should be given full reign while discouraging public input. Personally, and I speak for many, we do not want government-control, under any circumstance. Even more disconcerting is our current mayor, Mick Ireland, whose rigid beliefs do not augur well for future growth, the kind of growth that will benefit Aspen and allow the local citizenry better lives with more jobs, activity and improved quality-of-life..................
Extremes, like these, that accompany eccentric thinking in which a middle ground sensibility cannot be found, is a sign of distress that will lead to unnecessary hardship and hurt the best interests of this community. Do we really, on the face of it, want to complicate lives even more?
It seems, we the people, are inherently flawed, unable to reflect on historical precedent that reveal poorly evolved policies that didn't work in the past and will not work now. Some advice for members who support the new "districts": GRAB a hold of yourselves and think through the kinds of "ideas" you believe to be noble. "Historical district" and now a "Conservation district" - newly minted words designed to over-regulate already beleaguered homeowners in the (supposed) best interests of our community, are not noble. You are mistaken. If you follow-through with such folly, it will hurt many, including some you know, and will adversely impact our town.
Identify the changes you want and the reasons for those changes. Consider their merit based on our economic times and the current fiscal government concerns that impact Aspen at this time. Do you believe allowing your government to buy exisiting historical houses is a good thing? How could it be? Government should not be a purchaser of residential real estate just to preserve history which the HPC has done a fine job maintaining in the first place. Did you forget that this is the same government that botched Burlingame? Stay in-time with reality and do not over-reach. You will regret it.
The last thing this town needs is the institution of new historic preservation policies. We need to ride out this tough real estate environment without causing further duress or the addition of onerous policies that will add more stress and pain to people's lives.
When the final vote comes in a few weeks, use good judgment and vote against the imposition of additional historic preservation policies. Allow individual homeowners the autonomy they deserve. Give them a break!!
I spent three months in Crested Butte one weekend last summer. The housing in the historic district generally is run down because nobody will invest a dime in their property. The town itself is even deader than Aspen is in terms of vitality, as there is nothing there that would attract a person with an entrepreneurial bone in their body. If that's our future we are in deep trouble. Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse.
I think the one thing you are forgetting in this whole process of ours is that the property values of aspen are basically driven by the fairly small historical controlled environment that prevails here. every survey that has been taken proves this, If you want no controls I believe that you should advise your readers to move to silt or places like that where building permits can be gotten overnight, and the old wild west mentality prevails. this country is one governed by the rule of law, and building regulations, land use codes and historic preservation controls prevail in almost every municipality in this country (except in places like dallas etc.) and that is how community survives.
did you see former mayor bill stirling in his role as chairman of this task force? i saw it on tv and boy was he disappointed that this meeting didn't go his way! too funny that he is so fixated on using the word "historic" on an entrance to aspen SIGN!! heck, i'd take a spray can out there and do it for him. we don't need his commie districts in order to call aspen "historic!" silly man.
Mr. Holst, I do not suggest that historical preservation is unnecessary or unimportant. We have the HPS which does a fine job maintaining historical properties. Nonetheless, it's important to identify the historical properties that clearly qualify for all the right reasons from the battered run down 70s homes that often do not. Historical designations must be identified using good judgment, as in all things, although our country, and even Aspen, may not be in-balance when poorly evolved ideas prevail.
As you suggest, property values in Aspen are definitely impacted by maintaining and prioritizing Aspen's historical properties, which is as it should be. I agree. Too much development has also been kept to a minimum which has created more demand than supply, atlhough that may not be reflected in today's current real estate market.
Still, some change has got to come and we must allow it. Things must always be kept in perspective. We cannot stop growth altogether. There must be a balance between maintaining history and allowing, for example, Lift 1A development to take place. Both objectives reap beneficial results, in my opinion.
Les,
responding to your comments--
As for your comment on what we are “forgetting”---well, little of our objection has to do with "property values." It has to do with community values and honoring the individual and their rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. If they choose to improve their property and its value or not---it should be their choice—so long as they are abiding by the land use code.
We are definitely not saying “no controls”. We are saying let the land use code be revised to adopt whatever the majority of the community wants and then have ALL live within that code. Separate the issues of “mass, scale and design standards” from “historic preservation.” Don’t try to do indirectly what people don’t support directly. That is mixing apples and oranges, and makes for horrible law and begs for governmental abuses of power. Favoritism, subjectivity, and worse…..
As for “how community survives”---in my view, it is by honoring its citizens, and treating them kindly, and fairly. The abuse of the type that came down on those unfortunate people on “the list” is no way to build “community”. That is a way to drive out those who cannot afford to suffer the emotional and financial pain of having their homes and their value tied up by the government. It is a very elitist kind of regulatory abuse in my opinion.
Those who “have theirs” want to impose controls on others who have chosen to, or needed to, wait to sell or redevelop their properties. I think that it is a class bias that we should be ashamed of. For those people who financially can’t develop or haven’t developed their property---we tell them that they now cannot, because we want to look at their homes with nostalgia?? Sorry, that is just kicking around the little guy. Unfair.
The few people on the post WWII list who want to have their homes designated, and are doing so for the huge development incentives. If you walk through the West End and see the Victorians and their huge additions, or their reduced set back neighboring new structure, all done with “preservation incentives”, one asks, “what did we preserve?” It is not the small “mass and scale” I hear you reference. It is not an adherence to land use code without variances. It is not a ‘miners cabin” as it was historically. We preserve a charming replica of a Victorian structure (maybe) as a foyer to a contemporary, large home. Actually, I think that many are quite well done. But it is lost on me as to why we want to put the heavy pressure of those development incentives on our homeowners with post WW-II homes.
For us Ants, it is not about increasing the property value. It is about respecting our neighbors and their private property. And about law where everyone is equal. We don’t like a system where those that have the houses they want can tell those who don’t that they are shut out of doing what they want with their property. Or that they will have to suffer the decline in the property value so that we, their neighbors, can gaze at “what used to be” at their expense.
Thanks for your info and efforts, there seems to be no bounds to the "arbiters" intrusion into and control over private property rights.