The Last Stand
Comments by zense
Page 1 of 1
On Little common ground in historic preservation debate
(anonymous)
September 7, 2007 at 9:48 p.m.
› Suggest removal
what if…
What if my porch collapses. Could happen, its been close to collapse for about 90 years. They didn't build them to last past the first winter or so.
Will I have to get an emergency variance of the emergency moratorium to build an emergency porch just like the last lousy porch on my possibly historic possibly significant house?
On Should the city restrict the rights of property owners to renovate or demolish buildings that may have historic value?
(anonymous)
September 7, 2007 at 9:16 p.m.
› Suggest removal
As with many issues, a small well organized special interest group pushes an agenda through without due process, without city council considering a) all sides of the issue, b) relevant facts, c) impacts on individuals as well as the community as a whole, or d) short and long term consequences for those who will be most severely affected.
For 90 days, city council has directly affected the real estate market, certain residents needing or wanting to sell their homes at full value (as their homes' values have potentially been reduced by a few hundred thousand), the construction and design industry, and fostered an atmosphere of fear and divisiveness.
Personally, I think historic preservation is a good thing. So are personal property rights. Historic preservation of public buildings has a very different purpose and should have very different guidelines than anything adopted for personal residences. It may not be appropriate for residences to keep certain historical details such as the same footprint, outdated single pane windows, poorly designed and badly built porches. Street views, character, and nice lines of an old house can be preserved even when their square footage is doubled. Some possibly “historic” houses are candidates for scraping, due to poorly built, crumbling bones. In what world is it this city's place to decide which house stays, by mandate, and which goes? Who will be unlucky enough to be saddled with a house designated historic, thus losing a large portion of their potential retirement? Who designates historic? Based on guidelines for dissimilar, maybe larger or older towns? Or on guidelines for public buildings in National Parks? What fund compensates an owner for extra costs of complying with mandatory restrictions when making necessary repairs? Who compensates a resident for lost value for a house that can’t be expanded when sold to the next owner?
If the city wishes to provide affordable housing, there are other ways to impose what would essentially be deed restrictions. Perhaps a few more of the thousands of new residences currently proposed west of Steamboat could be deed restricted?
If the city wanted to preserve the character of a small, ranching, ski town, perhaps zoning restrictions on chain stores would have been appropriate. Public buildings, public amenities, public spaces, and large commercial development projects are much more logical and visible places for which to mandate “Historical” or Character Preservation, the key words being public, and large.
How quaint it would be to drive through town and see small houses built 100 years ago. For whom? Tourists? Future condo owners in the new giant downtown developments? Will cute downtown houses be a major selling point for these developers?
What power you have, city council members. Please wield it wisely with an appropriate arsenal of facts and with proper input from affected citizens.
Page 1 of 1
RSS
On Pilot & Today wants your opinion (anonymous)
October 7, 2007 at 12:10 p.m.
› Suggest removal
Its obvious the Pilot's bottom line and advertiser's concerns are far more important than “…what we might do for readers….”
We Readers want relevant, useful and well written content, and more of it, or we don't bother to glance at the Pilot at all. I was recently impressed with the professionalism, depth and breadth of Vail Daily's paper, which covered National issues directly affecting Vail, such as Oil & Gas leasing. Start with basic rules of journalism: What, Who, Where, When, Why. After reading an entire article, we're usually left asking up to 3 of those questions. Also present at least TWO sides, if not more, of an issue rather than serving as the mouthpiece for the powerful. Your omissions are as influential as your inclusions. You present council issues with no history, context or meaningful debate. Your articles have the tone of rah-rah Steamboat, no matter what.
“Journalism is not just some consumer product like cornflakes or cars. At its best, it is a noble profession and a public service. It helps to right wrongs, it gives strength to the powerless, it informs and enlightens readers, viewers, and listeners about events outside their direct experience. But at its worst, journalism becomes the bait for the commercials. It distorts reality, inflames passions, reinforces stereotypes, marginalizes dissenting views, and functions as a mouthpiece for the powerful.” — Juan Gonzales, NY Daily News columnist, quoted in “The Exception to the Rulers”, p 306 by Amy Goodman - a book that should be required reading for all your columnists!
Another example of great investigative, well written journalism is “An Air That Kills..” by Andrew Schneider and David McCumber, or most articles written by the late, great Dee Richards.