Weekly historic preservation report from the city HP Office
Kevin Weight, lead historic preservation planner, provides the Dec. 26 report in HP Officer Barbara Stocklin's absence.
Oakland Triangle Area Historic Designation
On Dec. 19, Historic Preservation (HP) and Planning staff met with opponents to the historic designation of the Oakland Triangle Area (generally bounded by Grand Avenue, 7th Avenue and Roosevelt Street). The opponents indicated that their primary concerns with the proposed HP zoning are limitations on infill development and ambiguity under the current HP design guidelines. HP staff hopes to create a specific set of design guidelines for the proposed historic district that will be agreed upon by both the proponents and opponents. A meeting with the proponents is scheduled for Jan. 2, 2007.
Sacred Heart Church Historic Designation
HP staff met with Aviation staff on Dec. 21 to discuss historic designation for Sacred Heart Church, located at the Sky Harbor Center (near the NE corner of 16th Street and Buckeye Road). The property is one of 22 undesignated sites that were recommended eligible in the Hispanic Historic Property Survey recently completed by the HP Office. Both departments agreed that the building should be designated along with a 25-foot buffer around the structure. HP staff will request that the HP Commission initiate the historic designation on Jan. 22, 2007.
Other properties scheduled for initiation at that time include Grant Park (701 S. 3rd Ave.), Harmon Park (1425 S. 5th Ave.), American Legion Post 41 (715 S. 2nd Ave.), Sotelo-Heard Cemetery (1302 E. Weber), Santa Rita Hall (1017 E. Hadley), Luis Lugo Bakery (415 W. Sherman), Betania Iglesia Presbiteriana (301 W. Pima), Phoenix Housing Authority Office (1305 S. 3rd Ave.), Cartwright School (5833 W. Thomas) and the William Grier House (1942 W. Adams).
Community Noise Reduction Program Meeting
HP staff had a bi-weekly meeting with staff from Aviation’s Community Noise Reduction Program (CNRP) on Dec. 22, 2006. A strategy for evaluating the historic significance of additional residential properties in Phoenix that are eligible for sound mitigation treatments was discussed. Because Federal Aviation Administration funds will be used to reimburse Aviation for these treatments, the project must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to historic properties or that any such impacts are satisfactorily mitigated. HP staff presented a proposed survey methodology and documentation plan, which Aviation will discuss with FAA. If the survey finds any properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places then an existing Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office will need to be amended to include additional stipulations regarding the treatment of these HP eligible properties.
Showing posts with label Historic Preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic Preservation. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Encanto Historic District update
California developer files appeal of HP designation
Council OK'd overlay for garden apartments, other properties, overruling planning boards
Scott Haskins, owner of properties at 1302 W. McDowell affected by the HP overlay OK’d by Council Nov. 1, filed a takings appeal on Nov. 28, but has indicated he may waive his right to an initial hearing within 30 days, which would place it during the holidays. The appeal is governed by existing state law, not the just-passed Prop. 207.
Council OK'd overlay for garden apartments, other properties, overruling planning boards
Scott Haskins, owner of properties at 1302 W. McDowell affected by the HP overlay OK’d by Council Nov. 1, filed a takings appeal on Nov. 28, but has indicated he may waive his right to an initial hearing within 30 days, which would place it during the holidays. The appeal is governed by existing state law, not the just-passed Prop. 207.
From our Nov. 20 print issue: Prop. 207 passes. Who's to blame?
Ballot initiative Proposition 207 wins big
Sold as eminent domain fix, property rights measure; preservation now to face tougher challenges
By David Tell, Messenger Editor
© 2006, Quicksilver Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Amid all the Election Day results that thrill some and depress others, one outcome that ought to be of particular concern for preservation advocates and neighborhood activists is the resounding success at the polls of Proposition 207. Billed as a “property rights” measure and marketed as a response to last year’s “Kelo” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the transfer of private property to another private owner under an economic redevelopment rationale, the citizens initiative was one of several similar measures placed on the ballot in states around the country.
In Arizona, where eminent domain has been in the news and on the legislative agenda over several years recently, the measure apparently resonated with concerns of many residents, and passed by a wide margin.
As is often the case, however, among the provisions in the measure are some that go beyond the stated aim of eminent domain reform. Of particular concern to many is the fact that the proposition provides for private lawsuits against governments by property owners who might seek to prove that a land use change applied to their property has reduced its value. Some are concerned that this will open a floodgate of expensive litigation against municipalities in particular, leading to the hamstringing of efforts to protect and preserve neighborhoods and structures, and leading to greater caution by governments in pursuing some types of land use planning and protective zoning.
The Protect Arizona Taxpayers Coalition was one group formed by concerned individuals and environmental, preservation, government and neighborhood organizations to attempt to get the word out and defeat Prop 207. In the aftermath of the election, players from that anti-207 coalition are expressing their regrets about the outcome, and in some cases questioning why they were unable to mobilize more voters in opposition to the “property rights” juggernaut.
Paul Barnes, a respected activist who heads the Neighborhoods Coalition of Greater Phoenix, was centrally involved in the anti-207 effort. In talking about the vote’s outcome, Barnes sounded frustrated that the hard work to fight the initiative seemed to have had so little impact. He is also concerned about a process for getting measures on the ballot in the state that—not exclusively to this case—allows out-of-state interests to come in and create new political and economic conditions that they themselves do not necessarily have to live under.
“Obviously, I was disappointed with the results,” Barnes said. “As to what I think it will mean near-term: I’m concerned about its effect on the ability to pass new historic overlay districts, neighborhood special district plans—as well as on this urban form planning.”
“Urban form planning” is a new approach being used elsewhere and currently being considered in Phoenix that elevates design considerations in urban land use planning.
“I think it’s going to have a serious negative impact on neighborhood preservation efforts,” Barnes added. “Perhaps most alarming of all is the fact that you can have an out-of-state group come in and basically buy an initiative—get it on the ballot with out-of-state funds—and be successful with what even the Republic said was a very misleading campaign of what was involved. They used the Trojan horse of eminent domain to cover up the real issue, which was land use planning and the whole legislative takings issue. Their advertising was misleading on television as well as on radio. I think that’s very unfortunate.”
Barnes went on to express some views that he emphasized were exclusively his own, rather than in his role as part of any organization.
“Personally, I think some of the responsibility for having this situation has to rest with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, as well as the city of Phoenix,” he said. “This past legislative session, I think it would have been much better for them to have worked out a satisfactory solution on eminent domain, rather than taking the ‘higher ground’ that they did, which gave Howard Rich and people of that persuasion an excuse to conjure up this ballot statement.”
Howard Rich is a wealthy New York resident who supported efforts to place similar property rights initiatives on the ballot in a number of states this year.
Ken Strobeck, executive director of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, deflected Barnes’ finger-pointing. Strobeck said hindsight is 20/20 and admittedly, there are always things you wish you might have done. However, “We worked through the entire session on 19 different eminent domain bills. We had a piece of legislation that we proposed that we think was a very good compromise, but that tried to answer concerns of people who thought eminent domain is out of control,” Strobeck said. “The Legislature did not even give that bill a hearing. Howard Rich paid $14 million for this kind of initiative to be run in 11 different states; this was a measure the was going to come down the tracks [no matter what else happened]. Whatever did pass was not going to be enough.”
Strobeck didn’t itemize all the areas or items where he believed the League’s proposed legislation better met the concerns of eminent domain reformers, but Barnes said an area the league and its constituents had previously balked at included tightening up the definitions of slum and blight.
But Strobeck said he thought that concern had been fairly addressed. “We agreed to do a property-by-property finding of blight and slum areas,” he said. “That was one of their big pushes, that a finding can’t be block-by-block.”
Strobeck said some outlandish criteria for a finding of blight, such as the existence of curved streets (as has been mentioned in our letters column by downtown resident and eminent domain critic Erick Baer) are relics that are rarely if ever used. “That’s in the original statute that goes back almost 100 years,” he said. “Pull them out in today’s context, you’d go ‘That isn’t blighted.’ —Some of those really obscure provisions, cities don’t hang their hat on things like that. We agreed to leave those things out.”
Strobeck’s rebuttals notwithstanding, Barnes feels negotiators dragged their feet on coming to the table with needed concessions to get a viable eminent domain reform bill. As it was, a bill passed, and Gov. Janet Napolitano nixed it, in her record-setting use of the veto pen. That’s not what bothers Barnes: “The bill that did reach the governor was clearly not acceptable,” he said. However, of the League’s never-considered proposal, “They weren’t early enough with a bill that would be a sufficient compromise to keep everybody happy. Initially they were holding out for too much, and by the time they came around, it was too late,” he said, adding that lack of a timely willingness to tighten up on the definition of slum and blight “was part of it.”
Moreover, “Neither the governor nor the mayor were willing to come out strongly against this [proposition], regrettably. The governor was silent on it,” Barnes lamented. “Schwarzenegger came out against [a similar initiative] in California and it didn’t pass there. I don’t feel we got the support from the people that we needed. It could have made a difference.”
Mayor Phil Gordon’s failure to use his bully pulpit against the proposition is especially culpable, as “the things they want to do downtown are going to be seriously hampered by 207 as it was passed,” Barnes said.
District 6 City Councilman Greg Stanton, who authored an anti-Prop 207 column for this publication last month, also rues the outcome, and while he prefers not to lay blame, he agrees there is responsibility to go around for not adequately educating the voters about the ballot item. And he also gives credit where credit is due.
“Paul and the citizens group that came together did the best job they could on a shoestring budget,” Stanton said. “I think we all learned an important lesson: There should have been a more organized and funded campaign against 207. On a statewide issue, in this day and age, you really need a significant budget. With so many issues on the ballot, there could not be a well-funded effort on all of them.” That said, “There wasn’t a huge amount of intensive outreach” on the anti-207 side,” he said. “The public bodies as a whole really have to do some thinking about this one, everyone needs to look at themselves and say ‘Did we do enough?’—because this passed overwhelmingly.” The measure was approved 65 percent to 35 percent.
“We were never fully able to educate folks on the implications on the ‘diminution of property values’ side of the issue,” Stanton said. “Collectively, for those of us who represent cities and the people, this was not in the best interest of the people I represent, to protect our neighborhoods.” Barnes is one of Stanton’s constituents, living in the Arcadia area, which is full of large-lot homes and has a zoning overlay to protect its character. Some vintage areas of north central Phoenix with historic or other zoning protection are also in Stanton’s district.
Stanton agreed that the proposition was misleadingly marketed, and rode a wave of popular ire over the “Kelo” decision, in which some longtime Connecticut homeowners were displaced to make way for a private development.
“Prop 207 led with the issue of private property rights, and if you talk in those terms, it’s a hard issue to overcome. Everybody wants to protect private property rights, and with ‘Kelo,’ Bailey’s, private property rights have been brought to the forefront. Those things are protected. We have one of the most restrictive eminent domain regimes in the country—that’s why we still have Bailey’s Brake Shop; he’ still operating,” Stanton said. But “I don’t think the proposition was fully vetted, people didn’t understand its full impact. The measure’s creation of a cause of action against government for diminution of property values—there are instances when people are reasonably going to ask their government to step in and act on behalf of historic preservation, and [now] it won’t be able to. Once people see down the line, there will be an attempt to revise this measure,” Stanton predicted. “I have the feeling there will be changes made to this law. Historic preservation, special planning districts, are things the public supports.”
In the meantime, though things will be more difficult in those arenas, Stanton predicted.
Asked whether the risk now is that governments will pull back from reasonably regulating land use in some instances; that there could be large payouts from diminution-of-value lawsuits in some cases; or that such suits would hobble the system, Stanton said “All of the above. Whereas the city has a very strong and vibrant HP effort, that will be set back. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to do HP at all, but in the controversial cases, where we do a ‘gut check,’ things might come out differently [than if based on an analysis of the merits],” Stanton said. “The kind of votes where there is significant opposition are the ones in question. The easy votes will still be easy. But because of the cost to the people of this city, the harder cases might give us pause. That’s not a hypothetical.”
Asked whether the current controversies over extending historic overlays in the Encanto-Palmcroft and Oakland historic districts are the kinds of cases that might be affected, Stanton answered cautiously. “I hate to put it in terms of a specific case; the dynamics of each case are different,” he said. But, “When you have HP zoning of an area where the property owner doesn’t want it, that’s exactly the kind of situation at issue” under the newly passed law.
Stanton said ideally, owner support should not weigh heavily in such decisions. “When we analyze HP, the question should be, ‘Is their area historic, is it deserving of the status of being historic?’ Occasionally that means the property owner doesn’t want it,” he said. “But just because of being designated historic, that doesn’t mean you can’t develop your property. There are significant limitations, you may have to wait a year, ponder, think it through ... I’ve never viewed HP as some kind of draconian land use designation; it strikes a balance between the interests of the community as a whole and the property owner.”
But, as a case of another protective zoning move that perhaps wouldn’t happen under Prop 207, the “Warehouse District Overlay, we’d have to think long and hard before we’d do that again,” Stanton said. “Land use is an area where the issues are often very complex, issues are subtle. We’ll take the individual cases, and we work hard on them. In most cases, HP is done in partnership with property owners. Most cases are promoted by people who love preservation, and in most cases, the zoning adds value to a property.”
In the end, “HP was one of the big reasons why I opposed 207, that’s where it may have the most unintended impact,” Stanton said, “Preservation has been a pretty good priority of City Council.”
As important as HP is, the potential effects of 207 go further, Stanton said. “What if we want to upgrade our design standards, for big boxes, for example? Arguably, that’s a restriction on property, that adds a cost to developing that land,” he said But ultimately, “It’s improving the community.”
“From my political position, the Supreme Court was wrong in ‘Kelo.’ That was wrongly decided,” Stanton said. “I don’t think they should have allowed a private taking in the case without blight; I was surprised East Coast states apparently have such loose restrictions on the use of eminent domain.”
But as a regrettable outcome of the measures passed in reaction, “The effects of 207 will be a hotly debated and hotly contested issue in the years to come across the state. This will be a field day for lawyers,” Stanton—a former lawyer himself—concluded.
Strobeck agreed with Barnes and Stanton that the outcome is unfortunate and that the measure was misleadingly sold. “We’re very sorry that it did pass. It’s one of those things: People thought they were voting on eminent domain, heard so much about that, were not aware of all the things stuffed into the measure,” he said. “The regulatory takings provision, that’s going to be litigated for years, will be very costly for all levels of government—and first, for citizens.”
Strobeck confirmed it was the League that sued a few months ago to try to get the initiative knocked off the ballot, for failing to meet a requirement adopted in recent years, that citizen initiatives attempting to create new programs entailing government expenditures identify a funding source to pay for them. For example, Proposition 203, which creates child health and education programs, also adds a new tobacco tax to pay for them.
“We analyzed the measure from a whole bunch of different angles, and our attorneys decided that was the strongest angle, that it did not have a funding source identified,” Strobeck said. “Voters passed an initiative [with that provision] two years ago, but that requirement only applied to state government, not to counties or cities.
“We got a ruling from Superior Court; it said ‘You’re right, it probably is unconstitutional. But they declined to invalidate it, saying ‘That would be getting into the substance of the measure.’ It came down to a question of ‘ripeness,’” he said.
Strobeck said he doesn’t know whether that legal challenge will now be renewed. “We haven’t made a final decision,” he said. “We did look at the Supreme Court decision yesterday [Nov. 10] upholding that decision. They also threw out the finding that it was clearly unconstitutional.”
Strobeck said the measure isn’t invalid for having multiple subjects, as that only applies to proposed constitutional amendments. But interestingly, that issue has some relevance to the rejection of the legal challenge to 207, based on the courts’ insistence it was premature to invalidate it reading it for problems of substance, rather than form. “Our attorneys have said using the Supreme Court standard that they put in yesterday, even a ‘multiple subject’ lawsuit would have to be a post-election challenge, as it would require the court to read the essence of the measure.”
But given the latest ruling, to fight the initiative now, “We would have to bring a new suit,” he said.
As for Phoenix’s outlook, “I have a meeting set with the Law Department to find what implications are,” city HP Officer Barbara Stocklin said. “Clearly there will be implications for the HP office and our programs.”
According to Larry Felix, an attorney in the city’s Law Department, “I was at several meetings about this” during the campaign season, and city staff “were saying they expected lawsuits to be filed.”
Felix said he isn’t the specialist in this area and that City Attorney Gary Verburg or Deputy City Attorney Bill Bock would probably be part of meetings such as the one with Stocklin, as well as city staff attorney Margaret Wilson, who specializes in zoning.
In the meantime, “There’s quite a bit of work the city is involved in, on the consequences the city will have to live with,” due to 207’s passage, Felix said. In Oregon, where a similar statute has been in effect a couple of years, “there has been $7 billion in claims,” Felix said. He wasn’t confendent of the magnitude, but if it is that large, it’s probably because there, “the law was retroactive.” Here, as far as he can tell, it is not.
Also looking more widely, a Wall Street Journal editorial (Nov. 11-12 edition) commented that “three states that rejected similar measures—California, Washington and Idaho—did so in part because proponents overreached politically by insisting that landowners should be compensated when government regulations diminish their property values. Opponents were able to portray this as a threat to state budgets and fiscal prudence.”
As for the Protect Arizona Taxpayers Coalition, it released a statement following the passage of Prop 207:
“If the initiative process is to remain viable and retain its integrity we must ensure that our rights as voters cannot be auctioned off to the highest out-of-state bidder. Close to $1.5 million was spent by special interests from outside of Arizona to put Prop 207 on the ballot and mount a deceptive campaign designed to trick the voters into voting yes. The organizations that bankrolled this initiative are all connected to Howard Rich, a wealthy real estate speculator from New York.
“Now that we’ve given Howard Rich a foot in the door he will most assuredly be back with even more extreme measures.
“Proposition 207 will result in serious consequences for the state of Arizona and could have a devastating affect on our quality of life and our ability to enact laws that protect our neighborhoods and communities. Under the guise of addressing eminent domain, Prop 207 goes far beyond. It includes an extremely confusing and deceptive measure that forces taxpayers to pay land speculators for unrealized profits caused by community planning restrictions or waive the restrictions for them.
“We must now pull together as a state to figure out a way to right this wrong, and commit ourselves to remaining vigilant in the future so that we cannot be fooled again.”
On a broader note, does the change in political winds nationally signify a resolve against “getting fooled again?” Maybe, maybe not: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” (Coincidentally, The Who are now touring to promote their first new album in decades.)
Sold as eminent domain fix, property rights measure; preservation now to face tougher challenges
By David Tell, Messenger Editor
© 2006, Quicksilver Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Amid all the Election Day results that thrill some and depress others, one outcome that ought to be of particular concern for preservation advocates and neighborhood activists is the resounding success at the polls of Proposition 207. Billed as a “property rights” measure and marketed as a response to last year’s “Kelo” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the transfer of private property to another private owner under an economic redevelopment rationale, the citizens initiative was one of several similar measures placed on the ballot in states around the country.
In Arizona, where eminent domain has been in the news and on the legislative agenda over several years recently, the measure apparently resonated with concerns of many residents, and passed by a wide margin.
As is often the case, however, among the provisions in the measure are some that go beyond the stated aim of eminent domain reform. Of particular concern to many is the fact that the proposition provides for private lawsuits against governments by property owners who might seek to prove that a land use change applied to their property has reduced its value. Some are concerned that this will open a floodgate of expensive litigation against municipalities in particular, leading to the hamstringing of efforts to protect and preserve neighborhoods and structures, and leading to greater caution by governments in pursuing some types of land use planning and protective zoning.
The Protect Arizona Taxpayers Coalition was one group formed by concerned individuals and environmental, preservation, government and neighborhood organizations to attempt to get the word out and defeat Prop 207. In the aftermath of the election, players from that anti-207 coalition are expressing their regrets about the outcome, and in some cases questioning why they were unable to mobilize more voters in opposition to the “property rights” juggernaut.
Paul Barnes, a respected activist who heads the Neighborhoods Coalition of Greater Phoenix, was centrally involved in the anti-207 effort. In talking about the vote’s outcome, Barnes sounded frustrated that the hard work to fight the initiative seemed to have had so little impact. He is also concerned about a process for getting measures on the ballot in the state that—not exclusively to this case—allows out-of-state interests to come in and create new political and economic conditions that they themselves do not necessarily have to live under.
“Obviously, I was disappointed with the results,” Barnes said. “As to what I think it will mean near-term: I’m concerned about its effect on the ability to pass new historic overlay districts, neighborhood special district plans—as well as on this urban form planning.”
“Urban form planning” is a new approach being used elsewhere and currently being considered in Phoenix that elevates design considerations in urban land use planning.
“I think it’s going to have a serious negative impact on neighborhood preservation efforts,” Barnes added. “Perhaps most alarming of all is the fact that you can have an out-of-state group come in and basically buy an initiative—get it on the ballot with out-of-state funds—and be successful with what even the Republic said was a very misleading campaign of what was involved. They used the Trojan horse of eminent domain to cover up the real issue, which was land use planning and the whole legislative takings issue. Their advertising was misleading on television as well as on radio. I think that’s very unfortunate.”
Barnes went on to express some views that he emphasized were exclusively his own, rather than in his role as part of any organization.
“Personally, I think some of the responsibility for having this situation has to rest with the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, as well as the city of Phoenix,” he said. “This past legislative session, I think it would have been much better for them to have worked out a satisfactory solution on eminent domain, rather than taking the ‘higher ground’ that they did, which gave Howard Rich and people of that persuasion an excuse to conjure up this ballot statement.”
Howard Rich is a wealthy New York resident who supported efforts to place similar property rights initiatives on the ballot in a number of states this year.
Ken Strobeck, executive director of the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, deflected Barnes’ finger-pointing. Strobeck said hindsight is 20/20 and admittedly, there are always things you wish you might have done. However, “We worked through the entire session on 19 different eminent domain bills. We had a piece of legislation that we proposed that we think was a very good compromise, but that tried to answer concerns of people who thought eminent domain is out of control,” Strobeck said. “The Legislature did not even give that bill a hearing. Howard Rich paid $14 million for this kind of initiative to be run in 11 different states; this was a measure the was going to come down the tracks [no matter what else happened]. Whatever did pass was not going to be enough.”
Strobeck didn’t itemize all the areas or items where he believed the League’s proposed legislation better met the concerns of eminent domain reformers, but Barnes said an area the league and its constituents had previously balked at included tightening up the definitions of slum and blight.
But Strobeck said he thought that concern had been fairly addressed. “We agreed to do a property-by-property finding of blight and slum areas,” he said. “That was one of their big pushes, that a finding can’t be block-by-block.”
Strobeck said some outlandish criteria for a finding of blight, such as the existence of curved streets (as has been mentioned in our letters column by downtown resident and eminent domain critic Erick Baer) are relics that are rarely if ever used. “That’s in the original statute that goes back almost 100 years,” he said. “Pull them out in today’s context, you’d go ‘That isn’t blighted.’ —Some of those really obscure provisions, cities don’t hang their hat on things like that. We agreed to leave those things out.”
Strobeck’s rebuttals notwithstanding, Barnes feels negotiators dragged their feet on coming to the table with needed concessions to get a viable eminent domain reform bill. As it was, a bill passed, and Gov. Janet Napolitano nixed it, in her record-setting use of the veto pen. That’s not what bothers Barnes: “The bill that did reach the governor was clearly not acceptable,” he said. However, of the League’s never-considered proposal, “They weren’t early enough with a bill that would be a sufficient compromise to keep everybody happy. Initially they were holding out for too much, and by the time they came around, it was too late,” he said, adding that lack of a timely willingness to tighten up on the definition of slum and blight “was part of it.”
Moreover, “Neither the governor nor the mayor were willing to come out strongly against this [proposition], regrettably. The governor was silent on it,” Barnes lamented. “Schwarzenegger came out against [a similar initiative] in California and it didn’t pass there. I don’t feel we got the support from the people that we needed. It could have made a difference.”
Mayor Phil Gordon’s failure to use his bully pulpit against the proposition is especially culpable, as “the things they want to do downtown are going to be seriously hampered by 207 as it was passed,” Barnes said.
District 6 City Councilman Greg Stanton, who authored an anti-Prop 207 column for this publication last month, also rues the outcome, and while he prefers not to lay blame, he agrees there is responsibility to go around for not adequately educating the voters about the ballot item. And he also gives credit where credit is due.
“Paul and the citizens group that came together did the best job they could on a shoestring budget,” Stanton said. “I think we all learned an important lesson: There should have been a more organized and funded campaign against 207. On a statewide issue, in this day and age, you really need a significant budget. With so many issues on the ballot, there could not be a well-funded effort on all of them.” That said, “There wasn’t a huge amount of intensive outreach” on the anti-207 side,” he said. “The public bodies as a whole really have to do some thinking about this one, everyone needs to look at themselves and say ‘Did we do enough?’—because this passed overwhelmingly.” The measure was approved 65 percent to 35 percent.
“We were never fully able to educate folks on the implications on the ‘diminution of property values’ side of the issue,” Stanton said. “Collectively, for those of us who represent cities and the people, this was not in the best interest of the people I represent, to protect our neighborhoods.” Barnes is one of Stanton’s constituents, living in the Arcadia area, which is full of large-lot homes and has a zoning overlay to protect its character. Some vintage areas of north central Phoenix with historic or other zoning protection are also in Stanton’s district.
Stanton agreed that the proposition was misleadingly marketed, and rode a wave of popular ire over the “Kelo” decision, in which some longtime Connecticut homeowners were displaced to make way for a private development.
“Prop 207 led with the issue of private property rights, and if you talk in those terms, it’s a hard issue to overcome. Everybody wants to protect private property rights, and with ‘Kelo,’ Bailey’s, private property rights have been brought to the forefront. Those things are protected. We have one of the most restrictive eminent domain regimes in the country—that’s why we still have Bailey’s Brake Shop; he’ still operating,” Stanton said. But “I don’t think the proposition was fully vetted, people didn’t understand its full impact. The measure’s creation of a cause of action against government for diminution of property values—there are instances when people are reasonably going to ask their government to step in and act on behalf of historic preservation, and [now] it won’t be able to. Once people see down the line, there will be an attempt to revise this measure,” Stanton predicted. “I have the feeling there will be changes made to this law. Historic preservation, special planning districts, are things the public supports.”
In the meantime, though things will be more difficult in those arenas, Stanton predicted.
Asked whether the risk now is that governments will pull back from reasonably regulating land use in some instances; that there could be large payouts from diminution-of-value lawsuits in some cases; or that such suits would hobble the system, Stanton said “All of the above. Whereas the city has a very strong and vibrant HP effort, that will be set back. That doesn’t mean we’re not going to do HP at all, but in the controversial cases, where we do a ‘gut check,’ things might come out differently [than if based on an analysis of the merits],” Stanton said. “The kind of votes where there is significant opposition are the ones in question. The easy votes will still be easy. But because of the cost to the people of this city, the harder cases might give us pause. That’s not a hypothetical.”
Asked whether the current controversies over extending historic overlays in the Encanto-Palmcroft and Oakland historic districts are the kinds of cases that might be affected, Stanton answered cautiously. “I hate to put it in terms of a specific case; the dynamics of each case are different,” he said. But, “When you have HP zoning of an area where the property owner doesn’t want it, that’s exactly the kind of situation at issue” under the newly passed law.
Stanton said ideally, owner support should not weigh heavily in such decisions. “When we analyze HP, the question should be, ‘Is their area historic, is it deserving of the status of being historic?’ Occasionally that means the property owner doesn’t want it,” he said. “But just because of being designated historic, that doesn’t mean you can’t develop your property. There are significant limitations, you may have to wait a year, ponder, think it through ... I’ve never viewed HP as some kind of draconian land use designation; it strikes a balance between the interests of the community as a whole and the property owner.”
But, as a case of another protective zoning move that perhaps wouldn’t happen under Prop 207, the “Warehouse District Overlay, we’d have to think long and hard before we’d do that again,” Stanton said. “Land use is an area where the issues are often very complex, issues are subtle. We’ll take the individual cases, and we work hard on them. In most cases, HP is done in partnership with property owners. Most cases are promoted by people who love preservation, and in most cases, the zoning adds value to a property.”
In the end, “HP was one of the big reasons why I opposed 207, that’s where it may have the most unintended impact,” Stanton said, “Preservation has been a pretty good priority of City Council.”
As important as HP is, the potential effects of 207 go further, Stanton said. “What if we want to upgrade our design standards, for big boxes, for example? Arguably, that’s a restriction on property, that adds a cost to developing that land,” he said But ultimately, “It’s improving the community.”
“From my political position, the Supreme Court was wrong in ‘Kelo.’ That was wrongly decided,” Stanton said. “I don’t think they should have allowed a private taking in the case without blight; I was surprised East Coast states apparently have such loose restrictions on the use of eminent domain.”
But as a regrettable outcome of the measures passed in reaction, “The effects of 207 will be a hotly debated and hotly contested issue in the years to come across the state. This will be a field day for lawyers,” Stanton—a former lawyer himself—concluded.
Strobeck agreed with Barnes and Stanton that the outcome is unfortunate and that the measure was misleadingly sold. “We’re very sorry that it did pass. It’s one of those things: People thought they were voting on eminent domain, heard so much about that, were not aware of all the things stuffed into the measure,” he said. “The regulatory takings provision, that’s going to be litigated for years, will be very costly for all levels of government—and first, for citizens.”
Strobeck confirmed it was the League that sued a few months ago to try to get the initiative knocked off the ballot, for failing to meet a requirement adopted in recent years, that citizen initiatives attempting to create new programs entailing government expenditures identify a funding source to pay for them. For example, Proposition 203, which creates child health and education programs, also adds a new tobacco tax to pay for them.
“We analyzed the measure from a whole bunch of different angles, and our attorneys decided that was the strongest angle, that it did not have a funding source identified,” Strobeck said. “Voters passed an initiative [with that provision] two years ago, but that requirement only applied to state government, not to counties or cities.
“We got a ruling from Superior Court; it said ‘You’re right, it probably is unconstitutional. But they declined to invalidate it, saying ‘That would be getting into the substance of the measure.’ It came down to a question of ‘ripeness,’” he said.
Strobeck said he doesn’t know whether that legal challenge will now be renewed. “We haven’t made a final decision,” he said. “We did look at the Supreme Court decision yesterday [Nov. 10] upholding that decision. They also threw out the finding that it was clearly unconstitutional.”
Strobeck said the measure isn’t invalid for having multiple subjects, as that only applies to proposed constitutional amendments. But interestingly, that issue has some relevance to the rejection of the legal challenge to 207, based on the courts’ insistence it was premature to invalidate it reading it for problems of substance, rather than form. “Our attorneys have said using the Supreme Court standard that they put in yesterday, even a ‘multiple subject’ lawsuit would have to be a post-election challenge, as it would require the court to read the essence of the measure.”
But given the latest ruling, to fight the initiative now, “We would have to bring a new suit,” he said.
As for Phoenix’s outlook, “I have a meeting set with the Law Department to find what implications are,” city HP Officer Barbara Stocklin said. “Clearly there will be implications for the HP office and our programs.”
According to Larry Felix, an attorney in the city’s Law Department, “I was at several meetings about this” during the campaign season, and city staff “were saying they expected lawsuits to be filed.”
Felix said he isn’t the specialist in this area and that City Attorney Gary Verburg or Deputy City Attorney Bill Bock would probably be part of meetings such as the one with Stocklin, as well as city staff attorney Margaret Wilson, who specializes in zoning.
In the meantime, “There’s quite a bit of work the city is involved in, on the consequences the city will have to live with,” due to 207’s passage, Felix said. In Oregon, where a similar statute has been in effect a couple of years, “there has been $7 billion in claims,” Felix said. He wasn’t confendent of the magnitude, but if it is that large, it’s probably because there, “the law was retroactive.” Here, as far as he can tell, it is not.
Also looking more widely, a Wall Street Journal editorial (Nov. 11-12 edition) commented that “three states that rejected similar measures—California, Washington and Idaho—did so in part because proponents overreached politically by insisting that landowners should be compensated when government regulations diminish their property values. Opponents were able to portray this as a threat to state budgets and fiscal prudence.”
As for the Protect Arizona Taxpayers Coalition, it released a statement following the passage of Prop 207:
“If the initiative process is to remain viable and retain its integrity we must ensure that our rights as voters cannot be auctioned off to the highest out-of-state bidder. Close to $1.5 million was spent by special interests from outside of Arizona to put Prop 207 on the ballot and mount a deceptive campaign designed to trick the voters into voting yes. The organizations that bankrolled this initiative are all connected to Howard Rich, a wealthy real estate speculator from New York.
“Now that we’ve given Howard Rich a foot in the door he will most assuredly be back with even more extreme measures.
“Proposition 207 will result in serious consequences for the state of Arizona and could have a devastating affect on our quality of life and our ability to enact laws that protect our neighborhoods and communities. Under the guise of addressing eminent domain, Prop 207 goes far beyond. It includes an extremely confusing and deceptive measure that forces taxpayers to pay land speculators for unrealized profits caused by community planning restrictions or waive the restrictions for them.
“We must now pull together as a state to figure out a way to right this wrong, and commit ourselves to remaining vigilant in the future so that we cannot be fooled again.”
On a broader note, does the change in political winds nationally signify a resolve against “getting fooled again?” Maybe, maybe not: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” (Coincidentally, The Who are now touring to promote their first new album in decades.)
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
From our Nov. 20 print issue: Encanto historic designation controversy doesn't deter Council
Council OKs Encanto HD extension
Overrules citizen planners, to match National Historic Register boundary for area
By David Tell, Messenger Editor
© 2006 Quicksilver Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Following two seeming setbacks, the proposed historic zoning overlay for an additional area of the Encanto-Palmcroft neighborhood was approved by City Council on Nov. 1.
The proposal affected a set of vintage “garden apartments” at 1302 W. McDowell as well as current and former single family homes between 11th and 13th avenues along the north side of McDowell Road. It was voted down by the Encanto Village Planning Committee and city Planning Commission, which are citizens advisory bodies whose decisions are not binding on Council.
The proposal has been controversial in and beyond the neighborhood, largely due to a proposed upscale condo project that would be built in place of the apartments, which had been a crime and blight nuisance to adjacent residents, requiring regular police attention.
The overlay, which would extend the city’s protective historic zoning to match that of the National Register of Historic Places’ more honorific boundaries for the district, imposes a one-year moratorium on any demolition and requires an approved plan for any replacement structures, in order to harmonize development with the adjacent historic homes. Adjacent residents also included in the overlay opposed it for fear that the problem apartment property would continue to languish.
Opponents have also objected to the unusual means by which the overlay was initiated—at the suggestion of Council’s Housing Neighborhoods and Historic Preservation subcommittee last spring and then by the full Council—rather than originating with the Historic Preservation Commission. However, city HP Officer Barbara Stocklin has pointed out that ordinance allows for that route of initiation, as well as other paths for an overlay proposal. In addition, while the commission has a policy of requiring 75 percent owner support to initiate an overlay, it is not bound by that policy, nor is Council.
Nonetheless, apartments property owner Scott Haskins, a California developer and art conservator, said the overlay approval is “disappointing,” and that he is evaluating all legal options for overturning Council’s decision.
“City Council’s basis for evaluating the situation comes from a completely different direction than the village planning committee or the Planning Commission,” Haskins said. “The Encanto Village Planning Committee looks at the benefits to the village and at issues relative to property rights. The Planning Commission looks at property rights and development in the city and considers also legal issues that they feel are important to planning issues. City Council looks at it from a political point of view: ‘Who needs what and who is going to vote with whom?’ Council refused to recognize the validity of the opinions of those other two bodies,” Haskins said. “And the Council completely ignored the preponderance of opinion of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was overwhelmingly opposed.
“Council ignored all that,” Haskins said. “Their issue is heightened with the passing of Prop 207. 207 underlines the issue in the neighborhood. According to City Council, it is handing over my project to HP. HP doesn’t have any development guidelines, only an arbitrary loosey-goosey guidance they would like to attempt to impose or oversee the project with. If they listened to the minority neighborhood activists, the property is going to be only two stories tall and a lot less units. That’s half the value. Council said ‘We don’t care about the R-5 zoning and the property rights, we’re going to rezone it.’ Or attempt to.”
Haskins’ plans are for four-story structures.
Proposition 207 is a citizens initiative passed in Arizona, as in several other states, a couple weeks ago, promulgated by property rights activists in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial “Kelo” eminent domain decision last year. It allows people to sue governments for land use actions they believe have diminished their property’s value.
Whether Haskins could sue under the new law, given that his property was rezoned before Prop. 207 was passed by voters, is not clear. Larry Felix, an attorney in the city’s Law Department, said for a law to be able to be applied retroactively, it usually has to explicitly state that is is intended to so apply.
“My project should be the poster boy for 207,” Haskins said. “There’s a question about that [its applicability to his case]. The city vote doesn’t go into effect for 30 days. Of course I’m having my attorney look into that. City Council has to go back over their resolutions and vote them into play.”
However, Haskins’ timetable could be confounded by the fact that the clock also doesn’t start ticking on Prop. 207’s effective date until after the public vote has been “canvassed” and then certified by the governor, a process that also tends to take several weeks.
Haskins said there could be a whole host of legal issues giving him opportunity to overturn the rezoning. As an example, “We believe the city submitted the whole proposal improperly or illegally,” he said. “Statutes say for City Council to put into motion a historic overlay the way they did, it requires the signature of at least one property owner—which they did not get. There are three or four or five [other possible legal] points.”
In addition, Haskins, who has retained not only local attorneys on his behalf, is also working with Choice Zoning Group, a firm specializing in community relations related to land use issues. The Midtown Messenger has been told it is formerly owned by District 5 Councilman Claude Mattox, who sold it to Robert Rakowski. Whether or not connected to Choice Zoning’s efforts, a column by Laurie Roberts in the Arizona Republic in September characterized apartments as “garbage,” not historic; and a local radio talk show reportedly used the case recently as a take-off for a wider harangue about property rights. Mattox and District 8 Councilman Mike Johnson were the two “no” votes on the overlay, vs. five in favor. District 2 Councilwoman Peggy Neely was off the dais.
Haskins feels his case touches a public nerve more broadly in Phoenix.
“I’m in the process of initiating a referendum,” he said. “We believe City Council has acted improperly and not in the best interest of property rights. We believe this is an issue the city [populace] would like to know more about and vote on.”
Haskins seems to have in mind a referendum effort seeking to overturn Council’s decision in a citywide election, similar to when Biltmore area neighborhood groups and others mounted a challenge to Council’s raising the height limitations for the area of 24th Street and Camelback to accommodate developers’ plans for the area.
Haskins was asked about longtime Fairview Place resident Marge McCue’s comments in the October Midtown Messenger that his apartment plans seem “pie-in-the-sky” and his projected value per square foot seems unrealistic. Her remarks were based on a presentation of his plans made at Encanto Clubhouse at Encanto Park in September.
“She’s not a developer,” he retorted. “If you’ve got comments from other developers and people who invest their money in the improvement of a city, I’ll be glad to listen. I can get opinions all day from people who don’t know squat.”
Asked whether it is specially advantageous for him to be developing property in Arizona, where Prop 207 has passed, rather than in California, where a similar initiative failed, Haskins replied, “I don’t know if there’s any benefit [to being a California developer investing in Arizona], but the ‘Socialist Republic of California’ would of course follow that path. California sides with the rights of the renters. They pass all these social programs, add all the taxes to the businesses. There’s a completely different social atmosphere in California.”
Encanto-Palmcroft resident G.G. George heads the Encanto Citizens Association, through which she has fought for the neighborhood’s historic status and other issues for decades. Critics attribute the initiation and passage of the overlay at least partly to her connection with District 7 Councilman Doug Lingner, who represents the area, as well as most of the areas containing the city’s residential historic districts. Of the latest outcome, “I’m very pleased that the Council saw the precedent, the policy that the city has established and of course the value to Palmcroft of those historic apartments,” George said. “The Encanto Citizens Association’s official position is that the mayor and Council acted correctly to align our Phoenix Property Registry boundaries with the National Register boundaries.”
The apartments in the overlay area have been identified by the HP Office as historically significant, as “first-generation buildings on land that was part of the original Palmcroft plat.” Other, similar “garden apartment” complexes have been preserved for reuse, and—in Scottsdale, for instance—are specifically being documented for designation as a significant historic style of their era.
Haskins’ pending hardship appeal of the previous denial of a demolition permit for the apartments has been canceled, as moot under the rezoning. “If he wants to file demolition economic hardship request, he will have to start over again,” Stocklin said. “There’s a separate process for filing under the ordinance, given that the HP zoning is now no longer pending but is permanent.” Haskins, asked whether he would pursue that route parallel to his other efforts, said he hadn’t decided.
In addition “There is the possibility of the property owners filing a ‘regulatory takings’ claim, within 30 days of when City Council approved the minutes from the meeting when the action was taken,” Stocklin said. “We hear that they’re planning on filing one.” She said there was a regulatory takings claim filed a few years ago in a Garfield neighborhood case. It is unclear whether that is one of the avenues Haskins was referring to among his legal options, or an additional one.
According to attorney Felix, a regulatory takings case has long been a possible legal remedy, but he said success in bringing a claim tends to require a showing that a regulatory action reduced a property’s value to zero, or at least to a merely nominal value.
Overrules citizen planners, to match National Historic Register boundary for area
By David Tell, Messenger Editor
© 2006 Quicksilver Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
Following two seeming setbacks, the proposed historic zoning overlay for an additional area of the Encanto-Palmcroft neighborhood was approved by City Council on Nov. 1.
The proposal affected a set of vintage “garden apartments” at 1302 W. McDowell as well as current and former single family homes between 11th and 13th avenues along the north side of McDowell Road. It was voted down by the Encanto Village Planning Committee and city Planning Commission, which are citizens advisory bodies whose decisions are not binding on Council.
The proposal has been controversial in and beyond the neighborhood, largely due to a proposed upscale condo project that would be built in place of the apartments, which had been a crime and blight nuisance to adjacent residents, requiring regular police attention.
The overlay, which would extend the city’s protective historic zoning to match that of the National Register of Historic Places’ more honorific boundaries for the district, imposes a one-year moratorium on any demolition and requires an approved plan for any replacement structures, in order to harmonize development with the adjacent historic homes. Adjacent residents also included in the overlay opposed it for fear that the problem apartment property would continue to languish.
Opponents have also objected to the unusual means by which the overlay was initiated—at the suggestion of Council’s Housing Neighborhoods and Historic Preservation subcommittee last spring and then by the full Council—rather than originating with the Historic Preservation Commission. However, city HP Officer Barbara Stocklin has pointed out that ordinance allows for that route of initiation, as well as other paths for an overlay proposal. In addition, while the commission has a policy of requiring 75 percent owner support to initiate an overlay, it is not bound by that policy, nor is Council.
Nonetheless, apartments property owner Scott Haskins, a California developer and art conservator, said the overlay approval is “disappointing,” and that he is evaluating all legal options for overturning Council’s decision.
“City Council’s basis for evaluating the situation comes from a completely different direction than the village planning committee or the Planning Commission,” Haskins said. “The Encanto Village Planning Committee looks at the benefits to the village and at issues relative to property rights. The Planning Commission looks at property rights and development in the city and considers also legal issues that they feel are important to planning issues. City Council looks at it from a political point of view: ‘Who needs what and who is going to vote with whom?’ Council refused to recognize the validity of the opinions of those other two bodies,” Haskins said. “And the Council completely ignored the preponderance of opinion of the neighborhood. The neighborhood was overwhelmingly opposed.
“Council ignored all that,” Haskins said. “Their issue is heightened with the passing of Prop 207. 207 underlines the issue in the neighborhood. According to City Council, it is handing over my project to HP. HP doesn’t have any development guidelines, only an arbitrary loosey-goosey guidance they would like to attempt to impose or oversee the project with. If they listened to the minority neighborhood activists, the property is going to be only two stories tall and a lot less units. That’s half the value. Council said ‘We don’t care about the R-5 zoning and the property rights, we’re going to rezone it.’ Or attempt to.”
Haskins’ plans are for four-story structures.
Proposition 207 is a citizens initiative passed in Arizona, as in several other states, a couple weeks ago, promulgated by property rights activists in the wake of the Supreme Court’s controversial “Kelo” eminent domain decision last year. It allows people to sue governments for land use actions they believe have diminished their property’s value.
Whether Haskins could sue under the new law, given that his property was rezoned before Prop. 207 was passed by voters, is not clear. Larry Felix, an attorney in the city’s Law Department, said for a law to be able to be applied retroactively, it usually has to explicitly state that is is intended to so apply.
“My project should be the poster boy for 207,” Haskins said. “There’s a question about that [its applicability to his case]. The city vote doesn’t go into effect for 30 days. Of course I’m having my attorney look into that. City Council has to go back over their resolutions and vote them into play.”
However, Haskins’ timetable could be confounded by the fact that the clock also doesn’t start ticking on Prop. 207’s effective date until after the public vote has been “canvassed” and then certified by the governor, a process that also tends to take several weeks.
Haskins said there could be a whole host of legal issues giving him opportunity to overturn the rezoning. As an example, “We believe the city submitted the whole proposal improperly or illegally,” he said. “Statutes say for City Council to put into motion a historic overlay the way they did, it requires the signature of at least one property owner—which they did not get. There are three or four or five [other possible legal] points.”
In addition, Haskins, who has retained not only local attorneys on his behalf, is also working with Choice Zoning Group, a firm specializing in community relations related to land use issues. The Midtown Messenger has been told it is formerly owned by District 5 Councilman Claude Mattox, who sold it to Robert Rakowski. Whether or not connected to Choice Zoning’s efforts, a column by Laurie Roberts in the Arizona Republic in September characterized apartments as “garbage,” not historic; and a local radio talk show reportedly used the case recently as a take-off for a wider harangue about property rights. Mattox and District 8 Councilman Mike Johnson were the two “no” votes on the overlay, vs. five in favor. District 2 Councilwoman Peggy Neely was off the dais.
Haskins feels his case touches a public nerve more broadly in Phoenix.
“I’m in the process of initiating a referendum,” he said. “We believe City Council has acted improperly and not in the best interest of property rights. We believe this is an issue the city [populace] would like to know more about and vote on.”
Haskins seems to have in mind a referendum effort seeking to overturn Council’s decision in a citywide election, similar to when Biltmore area neighborhood groups and others mounted a challenge to Council’s raising the height limitations for the area of 24th Street and Camelback to accommodate developers’ plans for the area.
Haskins was asked about longtime Fairview Place resident Marge McCue’s comments in the October Midtown Messenger that his apartment plans seem “pie-in-the-sky” and his projected value per square foot seems unrealistic. Her remarks were based on a presentation of his plans made at Encanto Clubhouse at Encanto Park in September.
“She’s not a developer,” he retorted. “If you’ve got comments from other developers and people who invest their money in the improvement of a city, I’ll be glad to listen. I can get opinions all day from people who don’t know squat.”
Asked whether it is specially advantageous for him to be developing property in Arizona, where Prop 207 has passed, rather than in California, where a similar initiative failed, Haskins replied, “I don’t know if there’s any benefit [to being a California developer investing in Arizona], but the ‘Socialist Republic of California’ would of course follow that path. California sides with the rights of the renters. They pass all these social programs, add all the taxes to the businesses. There’s a completely different social atmosphere in California.”
Encanto-Palmcroft resident G.G. George heads the Encanto Citizens Association, through which she has fought for the neighborhood’s historic status and other issues for decades. Critics attribute the initiation and passage of the overlay at least partly to her connection with District 7 Councilman Doug Lingner, who represents the area, as well as most of the areas containing the city’s residential historic districts. Of the latest outcome, “I’m very pleased that the Council saw the precedent, the policy that the city has established and of course the value to Palmcroft of those historic apartments,” George said. “The Encanto Citizens Association’s official position is that the mayor and Council acted correctly to align our Phoenix Property Registry boundaries with the National Register boundaries.”
The apartments in the overlay area have been identified by the HP Office as historically significant, as “first-generation buildings on land that was part of the original Palmcroft plat.” Other, similar “garden apartment” complexes have been preserved for reuse, and—in Scottsdale, for instance—are specifically being documented for designation as a significant historic style of their era.
Haskins’ pending hardship appeal of the previous denial of a demolition permit for the apartments has been canceled, as moot under the rezoning. “If he wants to file demolition economic hardship request, he will have to start over again,” Stocklin said. “There’s a separate process for filing under the ordinance, given that the HP zoning is now no longer pending but is permanent.” Haskins, asked whether he would pursue that route parallel to his other efforts, said he hadn’t decided.
In addition “There is the possibility of the property owners filing a ‘regulatory takings’ claim, within 30 days of when City Council approved the minutes from the meeting when the action was taken,” Stocklin said. “We hear that they’re planning on filing one.” She said there was a regulatory takings claim filed a few years ago in a Garfield neighborhood case. It is unclear whether that is one of the avenues Haskins was referring to among his legal options, or an additional one.
According to attorney Felix, a regulatory takings case has long been a possible legal remedy, but he said success in bringing a claim tends to require a showing that a regulatory action reduced a property’s value to zero, or at least to a merely nominal value.
HP Commission initiates Oakland 'Triangle' zoning overlay
On Nov. 20, the city's Historic Preservation Commission formally initiated the historic designation process for the so-called Triangle area of the Oakland/University Park neighborhood. Bounded roughly by Roosevelt Street, 7th Avenue and Grand Avenue, the proposed historic addition includes 100 buildings. Sixty property owners submitted petitions supporting the initiation; 24 owners opposed it; 16 had not responded by the hearing. The action means a stay of demolition will be in effect for the area as the proposal goes before the remaining public bodies that must weigh in on it. For a complete update, look for the Dec. 18 issue of The Midtown Messenger.
Sun Merc Update: No update yet!
Downtown Voices Coalition secretary Beatrice Moore lets the community know: No ruling from the judge yet out of October 2 oral arguments.
Superior Court Judge Peter heard defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the suit, which charges that Council acted contrary to ordinance and without sufficient authority when it approved development plans for the historic Chinese-America produce warehouse in December 2005. The plans call for an 11-story structure to be built atop the city-owned, historic designated warehouse, which is the last intact vestige of the city's former Chinatown. The city's Historic Preservation (HP) Office and HP Commission objected to the plans in the form the developer offered, but the agencies were overruled by the Council's vote. In a broadcast e-mail from Moore on Nov. 29, she exhibited patience with the judge, acknowledging that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly.
Superior Court Judge Peter heard defendant's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the suit, which charges that Council acted contrary to ordinance and without sufficient authority when it approved development plans for the historic Chinese-America produce warehouse in December 2005. The plans call for an 11-story structure to be built atop the city-owned, historic designated warehouse, which is the last intact vestige of the city's former Chinatown. The city's Historic Preservation (HP) Office and HP Commission objected to the plans in the form the developer offered, but the agencies were overruled by the Council's vote. In a broadcast e-mail from Moore on Nov. 29, she exhibited patience with the judge, acknowledging that the wheels of justice grind exceedingly slowly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
