Babblin' Brooks: Work remains to save Indy’s historic preservation system

Friends of this city’s historic preservation movement were breathing just a bit easier by mid-February, when a groundswell of opposition surfaced to Sen. Patricia Miller’s bid to dramatically change the way the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission does business.

Breathing easier, but with a still-cautious eye toward the state legislature, where anything can happen before the session’s end this month.

The neighborhood grassroots opposition resulted in a decision by Miller to set aside her legislation, Senate Bill 177. The legislation, which had already passed the Senate, would be pulled from House of Representatives consideration and instead referred to an interim study commission before the next session of the Indiana General Assembly.

The threat was this: Miller wants to add an appeals process to the current system, allowing any petitioner to send any IHPC decision to the Metropolitan Development Commission for appeal. The problem is that, under Miller’s plan, the petition would go to the Metropolitan Development Commission de novo – meaning it would start “from the beginning.” The MDC would treat the petition as a new case. The case would therefore not be an appeal as such; the MDC would not be reviewing whether the IHPC acted appropriately; it would not consider the expertise of the IHPC’s members or staff. The members of the Metropolitan Development Commission would not suddenly become experts on historic preservation; they would not suddenly become well-versed in the historic districts’ various (and very different) historic preservation plans.

The single biggest injury Miller’s proposal would do to the historic preservation system is this: It would remove any developer’s incentive to work with IHPC staff to create a proposal which would be acceptable to the commissioners. And – don’t let anyone tell you otherwise – that’s exactly what happens now.

In over four decades of work, the IHPC has denied less than 1% of the petitions which came before it. That means that over 99% of the petitions are approved, because of the good-faith work done by staff and petitioner.

Let’s imagine a scenario, however, should Miller’s ideas become law:

A developer wants to tear down a historic commercial building at 16th Street and College Avenue in the Old Northside. In its place would be a sparkling new pharmacy with a cookie-cutter design straight out of the suburbs. The developer has some time to spare, and is therefore willing to take the project to IHPC, where it will certainly be denied. That hurdle dispensed with, he then appeals to the Metropolitan Development Commission, which according to the legislation would treat the project as a new petition – as if the IHPC process had never occurred.

Might as well disband the IHPC and gain some office space in the City-County Building.

While there are some out there (including many developers) who would cheer the IHPC’s demise, it turns out there are many, many residents inside – and outside – of historic preservation districts who know the facts and know the value not only of historic preservation but also the existing system which has led to the recovery, resurgence and resurrection of many once-downtrodden neighborhoods.

As regular readers of this column are aware, Senate Bill 177 is not the first recent threat to the IHPC. A year ago, City-County Councilor Ben Hunter helped spark legislation which changed the way IHPC is composed. He found a champion in Miller, who has chafed over the historic preservation efforts surrounding a historic Cumberland church, which developers had wanted to demolish to make way for a CVS pharmacy. Last year, the effort succeeded to a degree, as the mayor was stripped of the ability to make all nine appointments. Now, the City-County Council makes four of those appointments.

But the effort to add an appeals process continues into this year. (Under the existing system, a petitioner must appeal through the court system, where the appropriate judge would consider whether IHPC acted within the stipulations of the law and its own established guidelines).

As originally designed, SB 177 would have done something even more heinous. It would have allowed whoever appointed the commissioner (the mayor or the City-County Council) to remove that commissioner without cause. I railed against that idiocy in this space last month, and won’t bother repeating those thoughts.

Miller’s ideas about the IHPC are still out there – and could even be resurrected in the waning days of the 2010 session. But even if the matter survives through March 14 and heads to an interim study commission, the work of neighborhood leaders is far from over.

The good news is this: Although historic preservation fans were slow to realize the threat posed by Miller’s legislation, they were ultimately strong in uniting to fight the changes, helped in no small measure by Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana. Representatives of every historic preservation district (many of those served by Urban Times) stepped up to the plate. Folks in Irvington and Cumberland – the two areas where incidents sparked the ire of Hunter and Miller – were especially vocal.

Most interestingly, though, was the support the historic preservation effort received from neighborhoods not under IHPC auspices. These people recognized the economic benefits historic protections had brought to nearby areas, recognizing the benefits their own areas received just by being neighbors to historic districts.

The time bought by the interim study commission will allow neighborhood activists to better inform legislators of the worth of historic preservation – and to debunk myths being told them by Miller and others. Legislators will learn very important lessons, including the fact that residents of each district voted, in effect, to subject themselves to historic preservation protections. They will also learn that each district’s rules are different, tailored to each district’s needs and residents’ wishes. They will also learn that few of the preservation plans dictate what color a house may be painted. (And, as an Eastside blogger pointed out, they will be reminded that most subdivision residents are subject to covenants far more draconian than the IHPC rules.)

That educational effort, however, will require the continued commitment of not only neighborhood leaders but their many neighbors as well.

It may be that a modification of the appeals process is needed – but Miller’s proposed de novo process is not the answer. Any appeals process must have input from IHPC, or historic preservation is on its way out in Indianapolis.

Here’s something else which came to my attention as I was channel-surfing between cross-country skiing and women’s curling at the Winter Olympics:

Downtown residents have a great deal to gain by taking part in the current effort to improve public transportation in Central Indiana – especially if a light rail line runs down the Monon Trail corridor. While mass transit typically makes us think of suburbanites and their commuting issues, any rail or bus improvement runs both ways – expanding our ability to easily move about the city, boosting our quality of life as well as enhancing property values.

The current project, known as Indy Connect, is fully detailed at www.indyconnect. org.

Public hearings on the plan began in February, but many more are scheduled in March, including hearings easily accessible to Urban Times readers – 7 p.m. Tuesday, March 2, at the Children’s Bureau at 1575 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street; 6 p.m. Monday, March 8, at the Haughville Branch Library; and 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 17, at the Julia Carson Government Center. More details about those and other hearings can be found on the Indy Connect website – which also has a way for residents to add their opinions on the idea.

Real mass transit isn’t happening in Central Indiana tomorrow or the next day, or the day after that. But the idea is beginning to get some traction.

As for me, I vote for a bullet train from here to Chicago.

I rarely plan four years in advance, but hear this: There will be no issue of Urban Times in March 2014. There’s just no way these creaky bones can soak up all this ski jumping, the halfpipe and giant slalom while at the same time producing a newsmagazine. Oooh, ski cross. See ya. n