Agenda Text
title
Alan Bingham submitting comments re: #204278, the Demolition Review ordinance.
body
Official Text
To the Honorable Members of the Board of Aldermen:
Last night I attended a public meeting in the aldermen's chambers for the legislative matters committee. One of the issues that was raised was that of the proposed changes to the demolition review ordinance. I would like to add my comments to the record please.
I am a resident of ward 6 and am also a commissioner with the historic preservation commission and have worked with the planning department on this update to the ordinance. While the document presented by Mr Proakis is substantially as I, and my fellow commissioners had anticipated from the many drafts, there were several issues to which we do not concur.
As I outlined at the meeting, I do have several issues with the ordinance as it was presented by Mr Proakis. These are:
2.12(c) exempts the city buildings from demolition review.
The problem with this is several fold. Firstly the buildings are the property of the people and should be subject to the review of the people. They are public property and as such the public does have an interest in anything that impacts them. Secondly, while we believe that the city may like this to streamline their process for city properties, it does open the question as to why the city should be different from the rest of the population. That is may add a time factor onto any planned changes / redevelopment of city sites is minor in the greater scheme of managing expectations and values of the city and the people of the city (who actually own the city assets). Thirdly, the city should not try to stand above the rest of the people in any issue because it could potentially be perceived as promoting a 'back room deal' to which the public was excluded and had no input. The HPC meetings for demolition review are public meetings where the citizens of the city can comment on any changes - including demolition - of city property. This is a democratic forum for the citizenry. There is no valid reason why the city properties should not be subject to the same rules as those of the private citizen and many reasons why the public properties in the city should be subject to the very same requirements.
b) 7.1(b) has a different delay period for non-residential buildings to that of residential buildings.
The problem with this is also several fold. Firstly, 12 months in a mere 3 month increase in the demolition delay period and as observed by Alderman Niedergang, this is considered a "cost of doing business" by developers and not a deterrent. Secondly, by making this period half of the time frame for residential buildings an unexpected consequence may be to make these building more attractive to development. While there are many non-residential buildings in the city that are prime for redevelopment and the current structures on them have no historical or cultural value it could represent a problem as many developers do not discriminate and respond only yo commercial opportunity. Many of these non-residential structures include offices, historic shops and commercial building (e.g the shops on Somerville Ave in Union Sq and the churches on College Ave, the tube works, Water pumping building on rte 16, etc.). We talk about the 'curse of the big lot' which translates to those lots with large area that are exceptionally attractive to developers. If this delay period remains at 12 months then we fear that we will lose many of the blue collar commercial structures of importance, many churches that are facing declining congregations, and historic store fronts. Basically, the demolition delay period should be the same for all structures. It would be simpler to administer, easier for developers to understand and easier for the public to interpret.
Also, having non-commercial structures outside the 24 month time frame with a time frame half of the one for residential structires may well be seen as promoting a favoritism towards redevelopment of commercial structures and churches, etc. Add to this the reality that the new ordinance has in 7.5 an articulation of a process whereby the HPC can fast track the demolition delay process and reduce the delay period significantly where appropriate (as the commission often does), then there is no need to argue that the uplift of the non-residential period from 12 to 24 months would be a hardship.
Regards
Alan Bingham