2 Responses to “progress on the Church Hill North Old & Historic designation”

1. posted by ann at April 3, 2007 7:50 am :
   

   Wow! This has happened even with the ‘benign’ Fairmount survey towards possible National registration? Weren’t we told that having the Fairmount and the Church Hill North designations hit the city at the same time was bad timing, that “The Fairmount designation should have waited until Church Hill North was decided.” and that “Several people seeking designations at one time in our district is political suicide. Delores could just say, “screw you all!” ” Maybe this sounds ‘condescending’ but it does seem as thogh the city might be capable of handling two things at one time after all.

2. posted by rubberneck at April 3, 2007 12:55 pm :
   

   After watching some of these threads over the last few weeks I feel I have to put in my 2 cents worth. I have been involved on the fringes of this effort for a while, and have been in on some planning sessions. The suggestion that people should not innundate the city with Old and Historic requests came from folks in the city, not from people on the task force. The city may well be capable of doing two things at once, but people on the inside have indicated that things would probably go better if they didn’t have to. The people who somehow are offended at the suggestion that we all “take turns” don’t get it. The request is not to deny any one group, but rather that we go about the process in a manner that will increase the chances of all those neighborhoods seeking historic designation will be successful . Each of these designation requests builds on the success of the ones that have gone before. The fact that he surveys came back with such a large positive response does not mean the desgnation will happen. It means the process continues. I think people should be more respectful of the efforts of the people who have worked so hard to try to achieve this goal.

Share a Comment