By the time St. Pete City Council members passed a set of changes to its current historic preservation ordinance, 1:30 a.m., their chatter was the ambient music of our quasi-dreamscapes, and probably those of dozens of others who left a once-packed City Hall hours earlier.But we were awake enough to hear the sizable compromise they made to the proposal that was presented to them, not that we're surprised.
Historic preservation advocates were hoping make it easer for a neighborhood to designate itself historic, which can only happen if a certain number of voters give it a thumbs-up. The plan was to change the threshold of residents' approval along with who is actually counted, two-thirds of all homeowners, even the ones who couldn't care less, to half of all people who actually vote.
What passed? A simple majority of homeowners.
Preservationists and city staff had gone to the table that night with a new policy that would have made it much easier for a neighborhood to designate itself historic, thereby making it much harder for developers to come in and erect nondescript concrete behemoths not so in keeping with a given area's character.
Council heard about four hours' worth of public comment, the majority of it in favor of changing the rules.
After all, they said, preserving the city's signature neighborhoods (or making it easier to do so) enhances St. Petersburg's brand, creates a sense of community, attracts tourists and, as we saw over the last recession, helped insulate parts of the city from the devastating impacts of a tanked real estate market (see: Crislip Arcade). They complained about an opposition-led misinformation campaign that warned residents of "armageddon" via mailers and robocalls.
The debate brought out high-caliber speakers like acclaimed historian Ray Arsenault, who said the city is at a turning point of sorts.
“We'd be better not to have a process than to have one that is rigged so that people invest their hopes and their dreams in doing something and there's really no chance to bring it to a successful conclusion, particularly when you're dealing with culture, you're dealing with sense of place, both the past and the future of the city,” he said.
Those who want to live in cookie-cutter subdivisions or glistening towers can still do so, said Richard Carson, but those who live in an area where a significant number of people seek to diligently preserve its character ought to be able to protect their neighborhood's collective aesthetic. But to stack the cards in favor of developers is to make way for irreversible damage.
“Had I wanted a subdivision type neighborhood I would have chosen Tierra Verde or Palm Harbor,” he said. “It's like Humpty Dumpty. Once its broken you cn't put it back together again.”
Unlike letting developers do what they will, neighborhood-wide historic designations are reversible, and easing the process for such a classification would actually make it easy to do the reverse, proponents pointed out.
Critics, mostly realtors and David McKalip, said the proposal would restrict individual property rights and posited it would be cost prohibitive for people to make modifications to their property, like build additions or replace their windows. Impact on property values was also a sticking point either side used to its advantage.
Among the opposition was St. Pete Chamber of Commerce CEO Chris Steinocher, who said he was concerned about the new rules stifling the city's upward trajectory.
“This is about certainty. This is about continued growth,” he said. “What is our overall housing strategy in St. Petersburg?”
Activist Gene Smith said the whole debate is being improperly framed; that the process of obtaining historic designation is one of petitioning, not of a democratic vote, and ought to stay that way.
"If somebody doesn't sign a petition, they count as a 'no' vote," he said. "The whole thing has really been re-characterized away from getting permitted, consent, to getting elected."
Most opponents, including Steinocher and Smith, did acknowledge the value of historic preservation, but were concerned that the new rules would let a small minority of homeowners restrict the property rights of perhaps hundreds of other homeowners.
After the public had their say, council had a lengthy discussion before approving a modified ordinance 5-3. The three down votes were Council Members Bill Dudley (whom we found out last night is running for School Board, by the way), Amy Foster and Wengay Newton.
“We've been able to work within the confines of the existing threshold for a long, long, long time,” Dudley said. “It's kind of a shame we're kind of changing the definition of a majority.”
Council members Charlie Gerdes, Jim Kennedy, Steve Kornell, Karl Nurse and Darden Rice voted in favor of it.
Rice had hoped for a compromise that favored historic preservation, which she said “positively impacts values.” She proposed a compromise that would grant historic status to neighborhoods where 60 percent of respondents (not all homeowners, because some probably genuinely don't care), as long as at least 30 percent of homeowners responded.
“Nationally the trend is to use local historic designation as a tool for economic development,” she said.
Those who advocated the changes were not exactly happy with the compromise.
"I guess I'd say it's a very small step forward," said Peter Belmont, vice president of St. Petersburg Preservation. "It's disappointing because we still ended up with a process that says if you don't vote you get counted as a no vote.”
The council will likely finalize the new rules September 17th, and Belmont said he hopes the council will then view the issue with a fresh set of eyes, not a bleary, middle-of-the-night one.
“The decision was made a 1:30 in the morning," Belmont said. "It was clear that they were tired and that they don't think well at that time of the day.”