IHPC wasn’t broken, but it gets legislative fix anyway

By Bill Brooks

The terms of five members of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission expire at the end of this year. A year ago, that event would have required the mayor to fill those vacancies, either through reappointment or by naming someone new.

This year, however, the City-County Council is in the equation, although at this writing no one is quite sure how the council’s role will play out when decision day comes. For that, we have the Indiana General Assembly to thank, because the General Assembly passed legislation this spring to change the way the IHPC was constituted. Before, the mayor was responsible for all nine appointments; now, the mayor names five members, while the City-County Council names four. The legislation (House Enrolled Act 1358) does not, however, stipulate which five members belong to the mayor, and which four belong to the council.

So, come Dec. 31, when the terms of James T. Kienle, George Geib, W. Bruce Stauffer, Betty Cockrum and Alan Lobley end, it appears likely that the City-County Council will have a say in who fills at least a couple of those slots. Without legislation direction, the details will need to be hammered out between the mayor and the City-County Council.

There is nothing wrong, per se, with the legislative change. Some onlookers fear that involvement with the City-County Council will make the appointments “more political.” The mayor, however, is a politician, too, and there’s nothing intrinsic in this process which will increase, or lessen, the chances that any given appointment is political.

Of more concern is how the General Assembly saw fit to change the original legislation which established the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission in 1967. Regular readers of this column might remember: Last summer, City-County Councilor Benjamin Hunter went to bat for an Irvington woman who had circumvented the IHPC when she replace the windows in her historic home. And even though the IHPC compromised significantly when it responded to the woman’s actions, Hunter objected that the commission’s ruling gave the woman no route of appeal, other than civil court.

Based on his comments from last summer, Hunter would have preferred that the General Assembly amend the city ordinance to give the City-County Council the final say over any IHPC decision. He did not get that. Nor, I suspect, would many of his fellow councilors want the council exposed to that kind of responsibility and work load. Imagine: Everyone who isn’t completely satisfied with IHPC rulings appealing those rulings to the council; better clear out a few more hours on Channel 16.

What Hunter did get was council say on the IHPC members. It remains to be seen how that plays out, but here’s the disingenuous part of the argument, as heard by some within the halls of the Statehouse: That adding City-County Council involvement will increase the professionalism of the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission.

That thought ignores this fact: That three of the current eight commissioners (one seat is vacant) are not only architects, but are fellows of the American Institute of Architects. That’s a big deal in architectural circles. Furthermore, Kienle – also a long-time resident of Lockerbie Square – specializes in historic renovation and has a national reputation for his work. Kienle has been president of the IHPC for the past several years, serving with two noted colleagues, William Browne and Diana M.H. Brenner. (Also credentialed in the general field is W. Bruce Stauffer, a project manager with a construction company who holds a degree in urban planning.)

Previously, legislation suggested that the mayor appoint at least one architect. The new legislation suggests that one of the mayor’s five appointments and one of the council’s four appointments be architects. But the IHPC already has three architects. You do the math.

Furthermore, the new legislation requires (as did the original legislation) that one member of the IHPC be a resident of an historic district. The current IHPC has three members who fit that category – Kienle; Susan Williams, a resident of Chatham Arch; and Betty Cockrum, an Old Northsider. Williams’ further credentials include many years of service on the City-County Council.

The new legislation suggests, but does not require, that both the mayor and the council appoint people nominated by Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana and the American Institute of Architects. It also recommends that a member of the Metropolitan Development Commission be appointed.

Why the IHPC’s current roster sparked the Indiana General Assembly to action defies logic. The big worry is that Hunter’s effort to “reform” the IHPC isn’t done. The good news: The 2009 legislation created no “court of appeals” for disgruntled citizens who don’t get their way with the commission. Also, the final legislation was amended from its original form, in which any commissioner could be dismissed from IHPC without cause. At least the legislature knew better than to hang a Sword of Damocles over every commissioner’s head.

What’s next? It is time for people living in historic preservation districts – and who understand the role IHPC has played in making those neighborhoods what they are today – to start paying attention. Further threats to IHPC’s authority could emasculate the entire historic preservation effort, and allow developers to do previously unimaginable things to the city’s most treasured neighborhoods. Worst-case scenario, yes, but every so often worst-case scenarios happen.

IndyParks officials are working on a plan to establish a “BARK PARK” near the Frank and Judy O’Bannon Soccer Fields, using land which sits under Interstates 65-70. That report appeared as part of the Old Northside newsletter, The Keyhole, on page 45 this month. The report indicated that, on the shorter term, IndyParks officials are looking at establishing a temporary “bark park” at Spades Park, while they work through the bureaucracy involved in the larger plan.

Add that fact to the list of reasons Urban Times readers should pay at least some attention every month to our neighborhood pages. Another reason can be found on page 36, where the Meridian Park Mirror features the city’s noise ordinance, verbatim. Might be good to know, when your neighbor gets out of control.

Occasionally, I put on my curmudgeon hat to rail against life’s daily irritants. A couple of my friends would have me play curmudgeon monthly, with cell phones as my constant target. Worrying about the “cry wolf” syndrome, I politely decline.

The cell-phone users still stir my hackles, especially when they think they can drive their SUVs through intersections without worrying about the red lights (or my personal safety). But, today, another group of travelers are in my crosshairs: BICYCLISTS who ride the wrong way along one-way streets. How did so many people get the idea that’s the thing to do?

This is not a tirade against bicyclists. I am one. But bicyclists who flaunt the laws of safety and common sense are making it harder for “us” to be accepted by our auto-wielding fellow citizens. Ride with traffic, not against it. And don’t ignore traffic signals. If you’re on the pavement, you’re subject to the same laws as everyone else. Ride the right way, or walk.