Things aren’t looking good for preservationists hoping to make it easier for neighborhoods to obtain historic designation. Based on an analysis of nearly 450 emails sent to city staff, Mayor Rick Kriseman and City Council over the past four months, opposition to an effort to change the way historic designation is obtained far exceeds support.
Of the emails sent, more than 300 were to voice opposition for an ordinance change that would scale back the current 2/3 vote requirement among all homeowners to some variation of reducing the required majority to just homeowners who vote. The current ordinance requires neighborhoods seeking historic designation to earn support via voting from a super majority of homeowners even though some are absentees.
Supporters of the ordinance change argue that bar is exceedingly high and that the threshold is nearly impossible to reach. Currently the city has just three neighborhoods with local historic designation – Granada Terrace, Roser Park and Lang’s Bungalow.
Despite the push, only about 60 came from those in support.
Most of the emails opposing the ordinance change came from a form statement likely requested by the opposition’s most vocal leader, Bob Griendling. Griendling sent out email blasts to random residents. It prompted one respondent to reply to the city that he had received Griendling’s “unsolicited” email and had decided to support the “other side.” In that instance the emailer was offering his support for the ordinance change.
The generic opposition email concisely urged St. Pete City Council to vote NO on the proposed ordinance change.
“As a homeowner living in St. Petersburg, I oppose the proposed change to our Historic Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance that would lower the designation vote threshold to 50% plus 1 of respondents. This change would put my private property rights in the hands of a small minority of homeowners, and it would infringe on my ability to change my own house. It’s not fair, and the city should not support this shortsighted plan.
“The current threshold for designation is 66% of property owners in the neighborhood. This ensures that most everyone in the neighborhood supports preservation — it is fair, it’s democratic and it prevents the rule of a few over what we can do with our homes,” the blasts from hundreds of St. Pete residents, many from Snell Isle, read. “Please vote NO to changing the threshold for Historic Neighborhood Preservation to 50% plus 1 of respondents, and keep the threshold at 66% of property owners. Don’t make it easier for other people to take over my property decisions!”
Supporters also attempted to flood city inboxes with a form letter of support, but failed to draw the numbers. There were a few dozen emails under the heading “I support the recommendations of the city’s preservation commission on historic district designations.”
The prefabricated emails from the opposition started coming in around late July while those from supporters didn’t begin until early August.
Prior to the flood of form emails, the city received other, more specific emails from both sides of the issues. Many of the emails asking City Council to vote no on the proposed change echoed claims supporters argue are either untrue or grossly over-exaggerated.
“[To] now be told (if our property is designated historical) we must use particular designs and materials and it will be reviewed by several levels of government/private sector advisors (sic) is not a popular concept,” Walt Jaap wrote in a June 3 email following a Woman’s Club meeting where the issue was discussed.
Opponents argue the additional review requires additional fees and would lead to increased costs for repairs and home improvements. Many emails referenced having to get city approval for even the most basic changes. Several emails pointed directly to painting a home. That does not require review under the proposed ordinance so painting a house in a historic neighborhood would be no different than anywhere else.
“People don’t understand they can never change the outside color, roof, shape, window, add on square footage, etc.,” wrote Sheila Ann Lefors in an email dated June 18.
Not only did Lefors reference the untrue painting talking point, she also wrongly states that changes can “never” be made. Only major structural changes would require what’s called a “commission review” that could be a hassle for owners and command a higher fee. Those projects typically come with a $300 fee for review, but most projects requiring review would only be $50 and could take as few as just a couple of days to complete.
Other emails referenced window replacements and implied homeowners would not be able to purchase modern windows that are more energy efficient and hurricane resistant. While it is true that older homes often require custom windows due to their size, homeowners can opt for newer, non-wood windows.
Many emails referenced property rights being reduced under the proposed ordinance.
“In my opinion, outright repeal of the existing ordinance would be more rational. Even in its existing form the ordinance represents an utterly unreasonable and unnecessary abrogation of individual property rights and an unjustifiable government intrusion,” wrote Michael Mahoney in a June 3 email.
Though there were far fewer, supporters made every effort to dispel what they see as swarming misinformation and offer reasons why historic preservation should be more available to neighborhoods like Old Northeast, Kenwood and Old Southeast.
Griendling, one of the opponents leading the charge against the an ordinance change, has claimed to represent the Old Northeast neighborhood.
In an email dated June 4, Historic Old Northeast Neighborhood Association board of directors member Susan Rebillot complained to the city that Griendling was just a “private” citizen and did not represent the association, but rather a “small group of vocal opponents to preservation.”
Rebillot was referencing an email she received from the city listing Griendling as a speaker allotted 10 minutes and as a representative of HONNA. She asked if an actual HONNA representative could represent the association’s perspective.
“The HONNA Board represents our neighborhood membership, and we support the proposed revision to the ordinance,” Rebillot wrote.
Griendling claimed that of some 70 attendees to a Snell Isle neighborhood meeting, none indicated support for proposed ordinance changes.
“When then asked by association President Scott Youngblood who favored keeping the current required 2/3 majority, seemingly every hand went up,” Griendling wrote in an email.
His claim was echoed by several others who wrote to city leaders with the same message. And a majority of the more than 300 emails sent to the city in opposition to the ordinance came from residents claiming to live in Snell Isle.
There was at least one Snell Isle resident who was in favor of the proposed changes.
“Today, I drove my regular route and I saw a very old, HISTORIC, home demolished on Palmera,” wrote Snell Isle resident Melanie Collinson. “It is across the street from the golf course and it looks like it might have been one of the original homes to Snell Isle.”
There were also some mildly entertaining emails. For example on June 17 a resident claiming to be named Chris “Afraid” answered in a generic contact form under “address,” “I’m afraid to tell you as I may be the target of the radicals running the government.” The snarky address was followed by a plea to vote no on the ordinance change.
City Council is set to vote on the issue at its August 20 meeting. Any number of varieties of proposed changes could come up. The original recommendation included a 50 plus 1 percent majority from only residents who voted in order to apply for historic designation.
The concern then became that could leave a small minority of residents making a decision for the rest of the neighborhood. For example, if only 40 percent of residents voted on whether to launch the application, 21 percent of those would be the minimum threshold. That means as few as 8 percent of residents in that scenario could launch the process for the entire neighborhood.
City Council members are likely to address that by establishing a floor. One proposal includes requiring a certain percent of residents to support a designation in order to launch the process.
There has also been talk of maintaining the current 2/3 threshold, but only requiring that be applied to those who have voted.
