I understand people's opposition to the proposed to historic districts in general and, more specifically, the proposed historic district that would encompass 770 homes in Newburyport. Such opposition was laid out in a article that ran in yesterday's Daily News, but I couldn't find it on the web site. So go to this July article for details.
The complaints center primarily around loss of property owner rights. No one wants to be told what they can do with their own property, I get that.
But people speak as if they hold complete authority to do what they want on their own property, and they don't. We all abide by property line set backs, allowed uses and other restrictions that we as a community have deemed to be acceptable to preserve communal harmony.
The city adopted restrictions against so-called "in fill" buildings to try to cram multiple homes on what had been single family lots. And, of course, down along the river, the city adopted the overlay district to ensure that developers (see Steve Karp) build something that fits into our downtown.
I see the proposed historic district as an extension of these existing regulations. The historic district would help ensure that nothing drastic is done - or hundreds of nothings are done - to diminish the unique historic appeal of our signature ways, High Street and Fedeal Street.
Take time to read the regulations for yourself. From my reading, the requirements aren't particularly onerous. They don't regulate interior work, paint color or every minute detail.
In fact, they merely confirm the role we all play in living in such a historic town - stewardship.
Meeting starts at 7 pm at the Belleville Church at 300 High Street.
3 comments:
I don't have a stake in this issue, but I moved to the South End of Newburyport from the South End of Boston, which has very strict appearance laws. There are, for instance, only 3 colors that can be used to paint the steps and/or window and door frames. (All the buildings are brick.) The law that draws the most complaints specifies that any modern additions (especially roof decks) must not be visible from the street.
What's the result of this? Look at the real estate prices of the last three years. In Boston's South End, they have continued to rise.
I believe that the presence of a Historical District will increase the value of every house therein.
It means that you can't get a wacky neighbor who decides to redo his Federalist house as a modern McMansion.
Of course, we already have a small one here: the top of Fruit St. The residents there voted for it, and I'll bet they are glad they did.
If I were in the district, I'd vote for it.
From what I read, the local district would have no restriction on what color someone can paint their house. Nevertheless, watch how many times people will allege that as a point in their opposition in the coming weeks/months.
I understand the benefits of an historic district, and am mildly in favor (though I'm not in the proposed district). As I see it, a real issue for owners in the district is actually a subset of a loss of property rights. Yes, we are subject to zoning and other restrictions, but the historic district is different, in one important way that I haven't heard anyone seriously address. Namely, if you own a house in the historic district, and the ordinance passes, you will be immediately required to comply, as I understand it. I understand that you won't be required to immediately make modifications to your property, but as repairs become necessary, or you wish to make changes, there is no "buffer" period. The day after the ordinance passes, if your door needs to be replaced, it must comply. (I think I'm correct about this, but please, if someone knows differently, please say so.)
When a zoning ordinance changes, there is usually a period of time in which an owner of the property has time to act under the old ordinance, and must file his intention to do so. If there were this type of implementation would we see a rash of homeowners slapping vinyl siding or plastic doors on their historic houses ... I doubt it. But it does seem a little heavy handed to change the rules after someone has bought their home.
Post a Comment