The last public hearing regarding the Bainbridge Historic Preservation Ordinance is scheduled for Tuesday, Jan 3, with approval of the ordinance scheduled for January 17th.

There are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. It is important that if you have an opinion on the issue that you voice it at the meeting Tuesday.
An overview of the first hearing is below and you can see comments made in Talk Bainbridge. 

City Councilman Rolfe Hunt has commented
"It seems to me that the idea of historical preservation has a lot of passion and momentum about it all across the country at all levels of government. Some communities have done wonderful things with it. I respect those who drive this issue and there are a lot of good reasons for it that have been mentioned here and in the public hearing. I am not enthusiastic about it. Maybe I should be but I prefer the modern and changing. My job as a member of city council is to try to represent the public."
"Unfortunately, the public is almost always split. Tuesday night I will listen to all sides carefully and decide when the time comes how to vote. Fundamentally, I fall with Henry Thoreau who said that government is best that governs least; still, those who have vision and passion about things that shape our future in positive ways need an opportunity to lead. As for the ordnance, please read it and come well armed to support or defend what you think is right or wrong with it. Facts are a lot more helpful than uninformed opinion."

Dec 20 Hearing

Viewing map of proposed district

Over 100 concerned citizens attended the first hearing held on December 20th.  The 2 primary concerns voiced was there would be a whole new level of bureaucracy established and the new board would be basing decisions on a subjective rather than an established criteria.

Community Director Amanda Glover reviewed the ordinance for the council and citizens.  She stressed that the ordinance would protect the property owners in the district and actually help with property values.  When a property owner would want to make a "Material change in appearance" of the property, all they had to do was fill out an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.  It would then be submitted to the Historic Preservation Board who would decide if it was OK.  The need to preserve our historic buildings was noted.

When questioned about how owners would know what may be approved and what would not be approved, Ms Glover stressed the Boards desire to work with everyone and that the materials used on the outside of the building would be the main focus of the Board.  Mayor Reynolds stated that the standards to be used are established by the US government, not the city.  US standards are noted below.

Barry Griffin of Griffin Sales and Service and Jim Mitchell who owns a number of rental properties in the district were the most vocal on the issue.

They were concerned that this board had no specific standards set.  The Board could interpret the "standards" in any way they saw fit.  It was also stated that it should be enough to comply with the City Zoning ordinances but now there will be a whole new level of bureaucracy to deal with, and at an additional cost.

Paul Fryor established that if he wanted to add a storage shed on his property, he would need a Certificate of Appropriateness to be issued.

The niece of a ninety year old lady stated her aunt could not be there but wanted to express her concerns.  She stated that she lived on Georgia Ave and could hardly afford her expenses now.  She was concerned with anything that would cost her any additional money.

There is a maintenance provision in the ordinance.  We asked if this lady could not afford to fix a broken window what would happen.  Would the city come fix it?  Ms Glover explained that the city could go and fix it and charge her.  When asked what if the lady could not pay for the repair, Glover stated that a lien could be placed on her home.

Barry Griffin has stated his intent on "rallying the troops" to attempt to at least put this off until some standards have been set in writing.  He is very concerned with the fact that we have no idea how the Board may rule on anything.  He also noted that the Lynch Building was excluded from the district.  He stated that this building was surely more historic than his building.

------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Comment
It is extremely important to preserve the historic buildings and the character of specific areas.  However, I do believe that the proposed district is too aggressive to begin this project.  The proposed district more than doubles the existing historic district. 

I would propose that all this time and effort be placed on improving the present district.  A downtown area is the heart of a city.  We do need to take care of our downtown.  While adding more canopies is great, why not emphasize that our historic downtown buildings be clean and maintained.  I would suggest this include leaking roofs and unsightly plants growing from the rooftops.  This would help our downtown and our city much more than expanding the district.

It was noted that a historic district would help with tourism.  Hellooooo, yes I agree but only if we are clean and attractive.  Lets concentrate on the main downtown area first and when we have proven we can do this right, expand the district to a wider area.

If you have an opinion we urge you to voice it to your council person or at the meeting on Tuesday.
Or in lieu of that Tell us your comments here.
------------------------------------------------------

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alteration, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The standards above from the city web site in a pdf file.

Here is the Proposed Ordinance