Public Letters about the Lafayette Park Rezoning Issue

Letters from the public record
Following are selected letters or selections from letters and/or emails taken from the public record. Sources are the records from the Planning Department releases prior to their advertised meetings on February 3, 2009 and February 24, 2009. Also, emails were requested through the chapter 119 Public records act. The choices are editorial in nature, with a desire to not embarrass anyone or unduly alter the tone of the full piece of correspondence, which may not be printed here. These are selections picked to give some insight into the ongoing process and the nature this process has developed. Enjoy. Think. React.
(Click here to go back to home page)

Dear Mayor John Marks and City Commissioners... A week from today, at 12 noon on March 18th, The Tallahassee-Leon County Architectural Review Board will meet briefly in the City Commission meeting room on the second floor. They are probably going to pass an application on Lafayette Park Historic Preservation. I am asking you to be there and witness this act. Please. The application they are working with contains "data sheets" on the 475 properties in the neighborhood, which are mostly a sham. The forms are barely filled out by someone who obviously never even walked out and looked at the homes in person. At most, other than the address of the property, this 4-inch thick application contains blank forms with little more than simple notations such as "brick" for a property description. These forms do not even carry a signed certification as to the accuracy of content or purpose--of course not, since they are nearly blank forms. Many are twenty to thirty years old and never been updated. You have appointed the members of this Architectural Review Board. You are going to be held accountable for their actions.. I urge you to witness their arrogance in person. Please mark your calendar and attend this meeting. You have received literally HUNDREDS of letters from the property owners who oppose this process. If you do not attend this meeting and witness the kind of government this ARB represents, you will be disappointing a large, concerned constituency. You owe it to yourselves to witness your appointees in action. I hope to see you there. Mark S. Daniel 3-11-09	Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners: I am one of the 67% majority property owners in the Lafayette Park Neighborhood that Strongly Oppose a re-zoning to that of historical designation. My husband and I built this house in 1949 and have continually lived here. However, it is more than a house to us, it is a home. We have always loved this area and see no reason to muddy up the neighborhood with un-wanted and un-needed restrictions to our rights. What ever happened to individual rights? Also, what ever happened to live and let live? As if there aren’t enough problems in the world, now a minority want us to mind everyone’s business in the whole neighborhood. I VERY STRONGLY OBJECT to this type of behavior. I have no objection to anyone that wishes to have their home designated historic. If the people that are trying to mind my business, had been taking care of their own business that is what they would have done. I know, as elected officials of our wonderful city, you are burdened with many things that are not worthy of the time and effort you must spend. However, this is one problem that has an affect on many people. The neighborhood opposes this change by a two to one vote and we are being ignored by the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission. We are not the only voters concerned, our families and friends all over the city are watching this issue also. Sincerely, Louise Y. Hartsfield 3-10-09	Dear Mayor and City Commissioners: I trust that you have been following the proposed Lafayette Park Historical Overlay (HPO) process, which might possibly be the worst case of governmental decision-making in the history of our fair city. To give you a quick overview, the President of the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association and a few overzealous property owners found willing allies in the Tallahassee Trust for Historical Preservation and the Architectural Review Board and have attempted to run roughshod over the will of the majority of property owners in Lafayette Park by repeatedly advancing the proposed HPO through its various stages despite the fact that over 67% of the property owners in Lafayette Park have indicated their opposition to the HPO. I will not take the hours that it would take to write about the systemic problems with this process, as I am sure you all have become aware of what has transpired, but I will say that if the individuals in the Planning Department, whom have been complicit in advancing this debacle by not killing it, had even a shred of common sense or political sensibility, they would not allow this abomination to be advanced to the City Commission for vote. Have they not considered the political ramifications of advancing a politically untenable measure for you to vote on that is so unpopular that 67% of property owners in Lafayette Park have already voted against it? As we Lafayette Park property owners tell our local families and friends, even those whom live outside of Lafayette Park, about how our city government has allowed a process to continue against the will of a super-majority of property owners, it is eliciting the same angry response from them as it did from us. When governmental entities allow a desired outcome to drive a process, rather than a process determine an outcome, especially one that has the end result of usurping our property rights, people tend to get angry. Real angry. That anger is growing and it is going to be looking for a home come the next City Commision elections. We are tired of this process and want you to act now to bring it to an end. Richard C. Griffin 3-07-09	Dear Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners: This letter is being sent to voice STRONG OBJECTION to the proposed historic preservation re-zoning of the Lafayette Park neighborhood. It is clear that a majority of property owners in this community have repeatedly expressed their objections to rezoning efforts. These objections are based on concerns regarding the restrictions that accompany such rezoning as well as the impact on individual property rights. You are urged to put a stop to activity in this regard and to examine the flawed process that brought us to this point. This neighborhood’s struggle has transcended its borders and voters all over Tallahassee are watching the City Commission with growing concern for their own property rights. If the Commissioners are non-responsive on this highly contested issue then certainly voter’s will respond at the ballot box impacting Commissioners from each part of the city, not just the residents of the Lafayette Park Neighborhood. STOP HISTORIC PRESERVATION RE-ZONING EFFORTS FOR THE LAFAYETTE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD. Sincerely, Pamela Blanton Peacock 3-2-09
Dear Mayor and Commissioners: I reside at 1208 Marion Avenue. I am writing to inform you that I OPPOSE the proposed hasty redesignation of the Layfeyette Park as a historical district. I live on the cusp of this district, but even within the other parts of the neighborhood, it is clear that declaration of this neighborhood as historical is not reasonable or feasible. Further, given the manner in which the city has conducted a rather hasty approach to this issue, I am concerned that due process has not been met. I, like others who opposed the measure, were not confused in any way by any of the information or ballots, etc. If you declare this neighborhood "historical," you are essentially ignoring a vast majority of homeowners. Please also consider that we are living in a time when many of the homeowners are trying to maintain as much leverage they have on the value of their homes. This is not the time to cause homeowners undue hardship in repairs, roofing, and the like. Additionally, some of the residents--who are reported to have ties to city managment--were sure to complete EXTENSIVE outside remodeling, addition of concrete walls, and large buildings on their property before beginning this effort at redesignation. I would like the city to conduct a comparison of what these extensive additions would have cost had the occupants had to go through the expensive process of "asking" for approval, should the neighborhood be designated as historical. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to an appropriate response that is commensurate with the desires of the majority of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jane McNeely 2-23-09	(to PlanningCommission) Madame Chairman and Commissioners: I am writing this email because I will be out of town for business on the 24th. I did not want my absence to be taken as a lack of continued interest, in ending this potentially devastating rezoning, on my part. This will be brief. There are only two issues. The first is that the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association, of which I am a member, only has about 70 members. That is a small fraction of the properties in the neighborhood. Within that small number there is no where close to a unanimous agreement on this rezoning. The LPNA DOES NOT represent the vast majority of property owners in our neighborhood. My second point is the voting carried out by the TLCPD. Those numbers speak for themselves. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly opposed to this rezoning. Please do not vote to initiate this rezoning. Let it die its natural death at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday night. Sincerely, Dean Minardi 2-19-09	February 17, 2009 To Mayor John Marks Commissioner Andrew Gillum Commissioner Allan Katz Commissioner Debbie Lightsey Commissioner Mark Mustian Re: Lafayette Park Historic Preservation My wife and I moved in our house ten years ago and have never once regretted our decision to buy our house until now. Some of the reasons that we made this choice had to do with the schools that we wanted our children to attend, being close to our family and friends and it's convenience to work. We have enjoyed the years that we have spent in this quiet neighborhood with it's diversity of architecture that make it unique. Our house like many of the others you see in this neighborhood is old, well maintained and like the others, is unique but not historic. Our family has worked very hard and spent long hours to make the improvements to our home with many more that we would like to do. With the historic preservation designation these decisions could now be made by others. There has been a lot of information that has been circulated both in favor and against the historic preservation. The citizens of the neighborhood all received and had a chance to review these items and after doing so voted strongly against this. It is very disturbing to find out that two thirds of the affected area voted in opposition to the historic preservation and yet the decision was made to disregard this and push forward with the overlay. Has any consideration been given to the the additional cost that will be forced on the homeowners just to maintain their house under the guidelines for historic preservation? Please take action to reverse this decision and listen to the tax paying homeowners that voted against this. We would like this letter to serve as our opposition to the Historic Preservation Designation for the Lafayette Park neighborhood. Richard & MaryLu Winchester	Dear Mayor Marks, My name is Jim Griffin. I own 2 1/2 lots on Wilson Avenue. I am very concerned about the Historic Preservation Overlay being considered by the City's Planning Department for Lafayette Park. At the last HPO meeting, the thing that I noticed was all the people for and against HPO all agreed that Lafayette Park is a nice neighborhood and a nice place to live. Mayor Marks, it didn't get that way through regulation --- it got that way through pride of ownership and the ability to be able to fix up our homes as need be. This proposed overlay will add three things ..... bureaucracy, red tape and hoops to jump through. In these tough economic times, we cannot afford to pay for the special additional expenses that will be incurred if the overlay is passed. I take deep offense in being told what to do with my property. I would like to see the MAJORITY VOTE RESPECTED and the HPO denied. My family has been here since 1946, and we don't need or want any more regulations placed upon our property. I urge you to get involved and support the majority rule as our elected Mayor of Tallahassee. Sincerely, James P. Griffin 2-16-09
2-16-09 To: Mayor John Marks and the City Commissioners Re: NO! to HPO in Lafayette Park From: Rena Carney, property owner I am writing to ask you to please take some action and stop the nonsense going on in Lafayette Park i.e. the proposed zoning change to an HPO. I own a home in the impacted area and have voted NO to this proposal from the very beginning! PLEASE take corrective action and stop this unfortunate, misguided initiative. During these times of financial uncertainty and cut backs, this is the last fight we should be having. These designations are entirely unnecessary and overly burdensome to property owners. I have had experience with HPO zoning with property owned in St. Augustine. This is no small matter. We do not want it. I am appealing to you Mayor Marks, and Commissioner Lightsey, Mustian, Gillum and Katz to stop this injustice. We did not ask for this or vote for this and we do not want it. Thank you for your HELP.	All, I sincerely thank you for your recent comments on the survey issue. The process in which this issue gone through to this point has not been easy to say the least and has been a divisive issue for the neighborhood. As you may be aware, I recommended to the Planning Commission at their February 3rd meeting, that they direct Planning staff to work with the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation staff to develop a process that will establish a more formal approach to future requested large-scale historic preservation designations. A process such as this needs to be more open and controlled by a responsible entity to ensure a balanced approach from start to finish. You all have raised questions regarding the balloting process and my recommendation to the Planning Commission to not utilize the data collected from the survey. The most important part of this process is public participation and you will not be deterred from voicing your concerns. The survey is but one tool that we utilize to determine a general level of support from a neighborhood. The survey is not a required criteria (in the Land Development Code) for the process or to make a recommendation. A similar survey was also utilized when the Meyer's Park Neighborhood was considering a HPO district. You will have a number of opportunities to voice your opinion to the decision makers if this process moves forward. You each were afforded an opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission and voice your concerns or ob j ections and I believe the Planning Commission listened to everyone. Additionally, if the Planning Commission initiates the rezoning process, you will have at least two additional opportunities to voice your ob j ections (once to the Planning Commission and at least once to the City Commission) before any final decision is made. Lastly, the Planning Commission and the City Commission can choose to consider the survey data as relevant and not accept my recommendation. I consider every concern voiced by every individual to be relevant to this issue and encourage you to clearly articulate your concerns so that the decision makers can make an informed decision. I am more than happy to meet with each of you if you need to further discuss your concerns. I hope that you feel confident that you will have an adequate opportunity to voice your concerns in every step of the process. Sincerely, Wayne Tedder, Director Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department 2-13-09	February 15, 2009 The Honorable Major and Commissioners City of Tallahassee Dear Mayor and Commissioners: In 1927, my father bought our lot at 434 McDaniel Street in Lafayette Neighborhood. My mother and aunt built our home in 1951 while I was in college. Then, I moved back home with my children in 1957 when I lost my husband. So. my family and I have a long history with this neighborhood and the people that have lived here these many years. When I received the information about the Historic Preservation Overlay and the certified letter asking for our input and vote, I called the Historic Preservation office and talked to a gentleman there. My home has had several additions since I moved back to Tallahassee. Many other homes in this area have been updated and changed. Our neighborhood has improved instead of going down like many other neighborhoods. For these reasons, I do not support the HPO. Getting permission to make changes such as new windows, the type of windows allowed, and the paper work involved would be annoying if nothing else. I assure you, any changes that I would make would be appropriate. It is unbelievable that the Planning Commission is ignoring our MAJORITY vote against HPO. I feel sure that all of you will do all you can to listen to our concerns. Please do not allow this change to go through. Thank you so much for your support of Tallahassee. Joyce J. Bramblett	To: john.marks@talgov.com ; andrew.gillum@talgov.com ; allan.katz@talgov.com ; debbie.lightsey@talgov.com ; mark.mustian@talgov.com Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: Lafayette Park Historic Preservation Overlay and Rezoning Issue I live in south Florida , but own a home in Lafayette Park where my mother-in-law currently resides and I am against the Lafayette Park HPO and Rezoning issue currently before the Planning Commission. The neighborhood where I reside in south Florida is governed by a homeowner’s association and we pay monthly dues – just like all the other “official” homeowner’s associations. Last night I attended our annual Board of Director’s meeting and it occurred to me that everyone at the meeting was a homeowner of our neighborhood. All owners pay the same monthly fee and the Board of Directors is a volunteer group “elected” by the neighbors and all property owners have a vested interest in preserving the bylaws and covenants of our association. As a group always does at meetings, there were those who disagreed with others and at times a few tempers flared but at the end of the meeting, we were still neighbors and respected each other as such. So my question to you as a group is the following: Where is the vested interest in our Lafayette Park neighborhood of ANYONE who sits on either the Planning Commission or the City Commission or the Board of County Commissioners (since they will also have a vote on this issue) or the Historic Preservation Board? Seems to me that IF this issue is passed those who will be making decisions about the neighborhood will NOT be those who reside in the neighborhood. And the only “vested” interest at that point will be that someone can add their name on the prestigious list as a member of the Historic Preservation Board and execute their own control of authority and add this to their resume! Even those who brought up this issue for Lafayette Park have some kind of “vested” interest and while mention might be made that this will ensure preservation of the neighborhood can this be the only reason? I, personally, believe there is “more to this story.” And what could have occurred for the Planning Commission to dismiss the official voting ballots that were directly mailed to the Commission? I, for one, sent mine overnight so I would have a referenced tracking number as a receipt. The residents have spoken with a “no” vote on both (1) the official ballots sent to the Planning Commission and (2) the unofficial ballots within the neighborhood. I urge you to please listen to the voting process. It does and must work in free societies. Thank you for time and reading this email. Cathy Ingram
The Honorable John R. Marks, III Mayor, City of Tallahassee City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Subject: Opposition to Lafayette Park HPO Dear Mayor Marks: My family has lived in the Lafayette Park neighborhood for approximately 75 years. My grandfather built his home on Beard Street in circa 1932 when he served as Mayor of Tallahassee. We have proudly watched the natural evolution of our neighborhood into the dynamic community it is today. We would very much like to see this natural evolution and development continue uninterrupted by governmental engineering. In 2005, an informal and patently partisan and unscientific poll of “some” property owners was conducted by a group known as the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association. This poll was essentially conducted in a vacuum developed by a small group of members representing but a fraction of the property owners affected by this rezoning proposal. The original application was filed in 2005 by the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association and the Tallahassee Trust For Historical Preservation. Neither of these applicants were legally eligible applicants under the Tallahassee Land Development Code (TLDC) Article V, Division 2, Sections 10-316 through 10-320, Historic Preservation Overlay and National Register of Historic Properties Overlay District. After several months of correspondence with the ARB, the TTFP and the City Attorney, the City Attorney’s Office advised the ARB that the Application was deficient and required legally proper applicants. Rather than dismiss the Application, the ARB simply permitted leave to the improper applicants to find proper applicants and refile. While we find this procedure, of so casually permitting the substitution of parties after inappropriate applicants had conducted a flawed process for over three years, to be questionable at best, we find it even more disturbing that after leave was granted to find property owners that qualified under terms of the TLDC the Application was refiled a second time with applicants, one of whom, was ineligible. Again, this was brushed aside by the City Attorney’s Office and the ARB. The Application was forwarded to the Planning Commission with a positive recommendation by the ARB. Recognizing some problems with the early process conducted by the ARB and the various applicants, the Planning Staff conducted a poll of ALL property owners affected by the proposed HPO. This poll was done by certified mail and was prepared by the Planning Commission staff. We consider the ballot format to be less than objective and complete but were willing to accept the result. Apparently the results were unsatisfactory to the Planning Director and his staff because he requested the Planning Commission to disregard them at its formal meeting on 03 February 2009. The results of this formal poll conducted by the Planning Commission was 115 ballots in favor of the Lafayette Park HPO and 230 ballots opposed to the Lafayette Park HPO. A 2/3rd majority of the affected Lafayette Park property owners voted NO! Mr. Tedder’s explanation to those in attendance at the Planning Commission Hearing was that some of the opponents to the HPO had published a letter to property owners that “MAY” have scared them and “MAY” have misled them. This is an outrageous, condescending and paternalistic excuse to be provided by government in the process of casting out duly cast democratic votes and disenfranchising the MAJORITY of property owners in the defined area of the proposed rezoning. I cannot imagine in the wildest stretch of my imagination a government official in the 21st century making such an outrageous claim in a western democracy. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Mayor, that you and your fellow Commissioners will carefully review this entire matter and restore some modicum of democratic, electoral sanity to a process, no matter how flawed, that has been soundly rejected by the vast majority of the property owners most directly affected. I thank you on behalf of myself and at least 229 other property owners in the Lafayette Park neighborhood that deserve just a tad more respect from the appointed officials that have so far conducted this questionable process. With kindest personal regards, T. Michael Hines 13 February 2009	13 February 2009 The Honorable John R. Marks, III Mayor, City of Tallahassee City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Subject: Lafayette Park HPO and related Survey Dear Mayor Marks: My family has lived in the Lafayette Park neighborhood for 63 years. My mother and father bought our home at 1003 Pine Street in 1945. I grew up in the neighborhood and attended Kate Sullivan, Cobb and Leon. After my mother’s passing in 1996, I purchased my sister’s half from my mother’s estate and I now live in the very house I grew up in. Since the original purchase in 1945, my house has had several additions… doubling the square footage of the original dwelling. This was/is the natural evolution of our neighborhood, or any neighborhood into a dynamic community. It is natural law that if things don’t evolve they wither and die. In my 50+ years of observing our neighborhood very few houses remain “original”. The Lafayette Park Historic Overlay proposal has generated a bit of controversy as you well know. I and my wife Cyndi were at first, open to arguments from both positions, but now are in opposition. Much of our opposition was kindled by the apparent disregard of the city’s own survey of Lafayette Park property owners! One must assume the motivation was to find a true unbiased sentiment (or why do it?) of residents who will be affected by this zoning change… was I mistaken? Of 433 surveys 345 were returned, that’s an 80% “turnout”! The vote was 230-115 opposed to this change! Last I checked 66.6-33.3% was considered an overwhelming landslide! More than any potential negative (or positive) impacts of this overlay… what is most disturbing and troubling is WHY disregarding this survey is even being considered!!!??? Are you not elected to serve? It is my sincere hope, Mr. Mayor, that you and your fellow Commissioners will carefully review this entire matter and “regard” the votes that your own office solicited. If any vote of the people is ignored, confidence that we are a democratic community is severely shaken! The vast majority of the property owners most directly affected, overwhelmingly rejected this proposal. Which brings me to my final question… if you or any of your fellow commissioners, defeated in the next city election, are you going to ignore the result? Last I checked, that was called tyranny! As of now Cyndi and I have complete confidence in you and our other elected (results not disregarded) commissioners integrity! Thank You, Fred & Cynthia Burns	February 9, 2009 The Honorable Mayor and Commissioners City of Tallahassee Dear Mayors and Commissioners: We admit to being shocked by the idea that the Planning Commission can ignore the ballots that defeated the Lafayette Park neighborhood historical designation and rezoning. That is how we see it, we voted and the initiative was defeated. So why would a non-elected land planning agency have the authority to view it any other way, why would the matter be continued??? I have asked for clarification from Mr. Tedder, and would like to talk with the planning commissioners, but now understand that the ex-parte rules are in effect, and even staff cannot discuss this with us. Before this comes up to your level for yet another vote, is there anything you can do to stop it? We respectfully ask you to do all that you can to turn it back, either to the planning commission, to allow the ballots to be counted, or to the neighborhood, so they can petition on an individual basis for their homes to be designated historic. Thanks very much and for all you do for all of Tallahassee, Carol and Jim Westmoreland ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:31 AM Subject: Property Owner Against the Lafayette Park HPO I own a home at 820 Ingleside Avenue. As an attorney and lobbyist, I work daily with the Florida Legislature. I was surprised and disturbed by the decision to disregard the Lafayette HPO vote. The Legislature in my experience would never so blatantly ignore the will and voice of their local constituency. Not only is this bad public policy and undemocratic, but violates proper and well-established City precedent and rule. Suffice it to say, a vigorous legal challenge will likely be the result if the improper and illegal actions of the Planning Committee stand. Bob Boyd	Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:02 PM Subject: Is there inherent bias in the Planning Dept.? Dear Mayor and City Commissioners I attended the Planning Commission meeting held this past Tuesday night about the proposed Lafayette Park Historical Preservation (HPO) overlay. I wrote to you and other public officials yesterday afternoon to describe my outrage over the way that the process has been handled by the Planning Department. I have been talking to other concerned residents throughout the day (this seems to be the only topic of conversation in Lafayette Park) and have agreed to write you about some issues that we feel need clarification. There appears to be bias towards historical preservation in the Planning Department staff that may be affecting the process. On page 5-6 of the pdf document that I have attached named, "Letters to the Planning Commission", please note the caustic and entirely one-sided reviews of anti-HPO documents (created by the opponents of the HPO) by Mr. Daniel Donvon, who serves as staff in the Planning Department under Mr. Tedder. Upon reading his annotations, any reasonable person would assume that his bias towards historical preservation could not possibly allow him to operate in the impartial fashion that serves to preserve the integrity of the process. I honestly question if anyone even working with someone seemingly so biased could maintain the neutrality required for that position. This certainly is in question after Mr. Tedder recommended that the Planning Commission not take into consideration the overwhelming vote against the HPO by neighborhood residents that his office oversaw. I also have learned that Mr. Donovon is also a member of the Tallahassee-Leon County Architectural Review Board and may have previously considered, reviewed, and voted on the matter currently pending before the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning commission. I certainly am not making that assertion, but if it were so, would indicate a conflict of interest and potentially a violation of ethics laws. Don't you think so? I spoke at length today with Dr. Anthony Arnold, who serves on the Planning Commission in Gadsen County, and also is a property owner in Lafayette Park. In our conversation, he stressed that a person in such a position as Mr. Donovon, should avoid such interlocking relationships and partisan behavior to protect the implied impartiality of the process. Approximately 2/3 of the property owners in Lafayette Park feel that the train of impartiality left the station a long time ago. Additionally, another of my neighbors, brought to my attention that a Ms. Cindy Smith on the staff of the Planning Department was providing information to the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association but not those of us opposed to the HPO. (see email below) Again, we have to wonder if employees of the Planning Department have a bias towards the HPO that may be affecting the decisions that are being made. I assure you that the owners of 230 properties in Lafayette Park have this on their minds. I would ask that you investigate these matters to determine if the process has been conducted in an impartial manner. Best regards, Richard C. Griffin
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:42 PM to(Mayor,City Comission & Planning Commission) Subject: 2/3/09 Lafayette HPO meeting Outrage!!!! Dear City Public Servants I am truly miffed! That the Planning Commission meeting on February 3, 2009, city staff recommended that the ballot/survey results regarding the Lafayette Park historical designation and zoning overlay not be considered in the Commission's deliberations. What part of 230-115 did you, Mr. Tedder and city staff NOT understand????? If you don't like the result of a vote/survey (230-115) you can just ignore it!!! Are you "Servants" or "Rulers"???? (Thomas Jefferson or Joe Stalin?) OUTRAGEOUS!!! I'm curious... what did our fair city's government $pend to send out these registered letters... only to cavalierly throw the results of 230 real Lafayette Park area residents into the crapper? (I figure the 115 DO count). Sounds like our taxpayer $$$ are well managed in these difficult times?????? I also wonder the "end game" of all this? Who are benefiting, because none of this happens by accident? As it seems most of us stand to lose more than we gain... and possibly the very control of our property on which we pay taxes and maintain. In my opinion, far too many of the “Smart” people in our city/country want to turn our world into a museum! Lafayette Park must remain a dynamic neighborhood to thrive... we have plenty of “hoops” to jump through now anytime we wish to improve our property... why do the proponents of this plan want to risk making this beautiful historical area an “urban blight” zone by frustrating efforts to improve our homes!!!!!????? Thus forcing owners to sell (to who… at what price?) possibly (hopefully?) at a loss... to escape a smothering bureaucracy!!! Again who gains? To me, this is sort of like placing a priceless Stradivarius in a locked glass case NEVER to hear its sweet tones again... to "preserve" it, what a waste!!! It should be in the hands of a master being played, re-strung, and when necessary, repaired. Yes, there is some risk that it could be damaged, but without that risk there is no music, so it might as well not exist! Museums have a purpose, but PLEASE leave my home out of this foolish effort!!! Sincerely, Fred & Cyndi Burns	Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 Subject: Fwd: Concerning the Lafayette Park proposed overlay From: bentrexler@comcast.net To: (Mayor, City Commissioners & Planning Commissioners) Subject: Concerning the Lafayette Park proposed overlay Dear elected and appointed public servants, I will keep this brief in the hope that it will be read and considered. I am troubled by the recent events regarding the Lafayette Park proposed overlay. Not with the overlay itself, or any of the points and counterpoints for or against it. I happen to be opposed, but I respect those who are for it. This neighborhood is full of smart people. For the record, this ISSUE is not tearing apart our neighborhood. This issue has snowballed out of control due to YOUR mismanagement. My disappointment is with the way that this matter has been handled by my government. I have remained calm throughout this process because I have said all along that I will support whatever decision my neighbors make, for or against. I think people in your business call the recent certified-mail ballot result a “super majority”. That kind of vote tends to get a lot of stuff done up in city hall and in politics, so I am baffled that the result is being disregarded. The people of the neighborhood have spoken, but you are not listening. Two out of three neighbors in my neighborhood are wondering, “Why is this being railroaded, and what is the motive?” Very Sincerely, Ben Trexler +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 1:34 PM Subject: Proposed Historical Designation Dear Mayor and Commissioners: I reside at 1208 Marion Avenue. I am writing to inform you that I OPPOSE the proposed hasty redesignation of the Layfeyette Park as a historical district. I live on the cusp of this district, but even within the other parts of the neighborhood, it is clear that declaration of this neighborhood as historical is not reasonable or feasible. Further, given the manner in which the city has conducted a rather hasty approach to this issue, I am concerned that due process has not been met. I, like others who opposed the measure, were not confused in any way by any of the information or ballots, etc. If you declare this neighborhood "historical," you are essentially ignoring a vast majority of homeowners. Please also consider that we are living in a time when many of the homeowners are trying to maintain as much leverage they have on the value of their homes. This is not the time to cause homeowners undue hardship in repairs, roofing, and the like. Additionally, some of the residents--who are reported to have ties to city managment--were sure to complete EXTENSIVE outside remodeling, addition of concrete walls, and large buildings on their property before beginning this effort at redesignation. I would like the city to conduct a comparison of what these extensive additions would have cost had the occupants had to go through the expensive process of "asking" for approval, should the neighborhood be designated as historical. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to an appropriate response that is commensurate with the desires of the majority of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jane McNeely	Subject: Suppression of Citizens' Vote on HPO at Planning Commission Meeting on February 3, 2009 TO (Mayor, City Commission & Planning Commission) Date: Friday, February 6, 2009 Dear Commission Members: I attended the Planning Commission Meeting on February 3, 2009 at City pertaining to the proposed Lafayette Park neighborhood Historic Property Overlay and Rezoning (HPO). I own four lots on Beard Street. My family originally came to Tallahassee from Charleston, South Carolina in 1830.Ninety-five years later, my grandparents purchased the Beard Street property in 1925. In 1930, they built the home I have occupied for the past thirty years. I was very shocked when Wayne Tedder informed the Commissioners to disregard the outcome of balloting instigated by Planning Commission staff for support or non-support of the Historic Property Overlay. The tally of the ballots received by City staff was 230 opposed to the HPO vs. 115 in favor of the HPO. I was relieved that the City issued the ballots in the first place. I have never felt comfortable with the neighborhood balloting conducted by the LPNA over two years ago. They completely controlled the process from the beginning to the end. They issued the ballots, totaled the votes, and tracked the responses. Then they went around and personally lobbied those property owners who had not returned ballots until they got the result they wanted. It took them months. Because LPNA controlled the process, an open-ended time frame was available to them. I do not believe this to have been a fair and impartial process. Conducting a vote of this importance should have been a governmental function, and the role of the LPNA limited to education with alternate venues for those with different views. The reasons Mr. Tedder gave for the Planning Commission to disregard the tally conducted by its own staff were downright insulting of my intelligence and that of my neighbors. It is true that many pamphlets representing diverse points of view were circulated in the neighborhood. This is supposed to take place in a free society. He felt that residents were being unduly scared by thesepamphlets, and offered this as an explanation for the broad differences in results in City balloting now and the LPNA voting over two years ago. Quite frankly, the document that scared me was the letter from the Architectural Review Board detailing the control they would have over my property if the HPO goes through. In terms of the differences in the ballots sent out by City staff and slightly modified copies sent out by other parties, what difference does it make as long as the legal wording was the same, and it was signed by the registered property owner? The City balloting was a much fairer, controlled process than that conducted by LPNA, yet Mr. Tedder would disregard the current City tally in favor of that conducted by LPNA over two years ago. It is apparent that he and the staff have been completely overwhelmed by this agenda item. The staff recommendation was not released until the evening before the public hearing. A voluminous packet of over 200 pages of materials was distributed to Planning Commission members less than 24 hours before the meeting, and additions were made the following morning. Several Commission members indicated they had not had time to review the complete packet prior to the meeting. I was very surprised to hear Commissioner Kendall make a motion to move the matter on to the City Commissioners for a vote even though she knew her colleagues had not had time to review the materials. She made remarks to the effect that the LPNA and ARB had recommended passage, and that was good enough for her. Commissioner Kendall seemed to have very close ties to the LPNA and ARB and did not seem to place any value on input from property owners. A letter I sent the Commission is in that packet. So are those from many other concerned citizens who deserve to have their views read and carefully considered. I have the distinct impression that this is being steamrollered through by Planning Commission staff, the ARB and the LPNA regardless of the true wishes of the majority of property owners. The LPNA membership comprises a very small percentage of property owners. I do not believe they represent my interests, nor those of the other 229 property owners who also voted against the HPO. The HPO rezoning process is flawed and should be stopped. Period. Thank you for your consideration of my views and recommendations. Yours truly, Nina Alexander	Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 Subject: Lafayette Park Historical Designation and Zoning Overlay Mayor, Commissioners, and Manager, At the Planning Commission meeting on February 3, staff provided information on a polling of property owners regarding the proposed historical preservation designation and overlay for the Lafayette Park neighborhood. Of the 443 surveys mailed, 115 lots were in support, 230 lots were against, and 25 ballots were returned unclaimed. However, staff recommended that the results not be considered in the Commission's deliberations. City Staff has determined that some of the information sent by a group of neighborhood residents calling itself Concerned Homeowners of Lafayette Park contains some incorrect information and may be misleading. City staff also took issue with a sample ballot that was included in the mailing because recipients were advised if they had they had previously voted in favor of the HPO and wished to change their vote to submit the ballot that was included in our literature and indicate to the Planning Department that they were changing their vote. I was listed as one of the contact people on this mailing. I regret that city staff took umbrage with seeing their literature annotated but there was no way a reasonable individual could confuse the mail out from the city and the mail out from the Concerned Homeowners. The material in question did not duplicate city stationery or logos and provided a clear heading of what group sent the mailing as well as the names and addresses of contact individuals. It truthfully represented our perception of the issue and was not intended as a scare tactic. We believed there was a need to advise residents that you could have a historical preservation district without voting for the overlay. This option was not discussed in the letter from the Planning Department. We also wanted to remind residents of the repairs and renovations that would require ARB approval. We included a list (annotated by us) that the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation had distributed in a neighborhood mailing using public funds. This listing was attacked by the proponents - not for being annotated - but for being incomplete. Sorry, we were just using the factual information from the Trust, how were we to know it was incomplete! If the issue is "ballot tampering", it would have been quite easy to identify the ballots submitted on the form that was included in the materials sent by Concerned Homeowners of Lafayette Park. Over half of the "No" ballots would have to be disqualified to give the proponents a ghost of a chance to have a majority. I advised Mr. Tedder that I had telephone conversations with people who lived out of town and they either did not receive a certified letter or were unable to retrieve their letter from their branch post offices and at the last minute submitted a substitute ballot. I remind you that the ballots were due on a Wednesday following an extended holiday weekend (Saturday, Sunday, Monday) when there wasn't access to window pick-up at local post offices. There was no intent to submit a fraudulent ballot or "stuff" the ballot box. Frankly, we were hoping for a 50% vote and never considered that two-thirds of our neighbors would vote against the proposition. I seriously doubt that the about face of the vote from 2005 to now was due to scare tactics. Geez, I simply lack the ability to effectively scare 229 people! I think people had adequate information to make an informed vote which they did not have in 2005. I honestly thought that a 2:1 vote opposing the HPO would actually carry some weight in a discussion. Apparently, the opinion of a very vocal minority group is more important. I am disappointed with this entire process up to this point. The initials applicants, the Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association and The Tallahassee Trust for Historical Preservation, were deemed not to having standing by the ARB, which then allowed two individuals, one of which was not a registered homeowner according to the Property Appraiser's record (Mr. Pfost subsequently file documentation to include his name on the records for a residential unit of Beard Street), to amend the original application and submit it in their names. These individuals sign documentation representing all property owners in the area; the Trust's survey of contributing properties is inaccurate; the established boundaries were arbitrarily set, etc. The Planning Department has acknowledged the process flaws although the Planning Commission does not seem disposed to address them at this time. I doubt if any political issue has ever been waged in which someone did not call into question the method or message of the opposition. However, that does no invalidate the outcome of a vote. If it is necessary to blame someone, blame me. Please do not penalize 229 of my neighbors who made rational, heartfelt decisions regarding this issue and voted No! Thank you, Farr Miller
Back to home page	Write your own letter now! Click here to go to the Links Page!	The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation quoted data for Myers Park as an example of what we can expect in Lafayette Park...one home improvement every 38 years! Read more....	Check out the petition delivered to Mayor Marks!
3-13-2009 Dear Ms. Lightsey, This memo is in regard to the above referenced subject, but more specifically, your response to Mr. Hines' recent letter addressed to yourself and fellow comissioners. I, (and many others) are in complete support of Mr. Hines' comments and citations on this issue! The absolute gall of any elected, (BY POPULAR VOTE) or unelected officials not recognizing the importance of the fairness of the democratic process is truly abhorrent, and flies in the face of all of us who are long-time residents here. Imagine, if you will, that even though you won your last election by popular vote, someone at City Hall decided that they didn't particularly like you, and began a process to let me take your seat. I'm quite sure that you would feel much the same way as I do in this matter. Also, I'm sure that you would address the issue with language that might be considered strongly worded, as Mr. Hines has done. I too have written several times to the City Attorney, Commissioners, and others,who did not dignify my communications with a response.I have voted and supported you on each and every occasion that you ran and won your seat. My wife, Edith, and I will certainly carefully watch your action on this matter. It is not too late to take up our position in this matter. It is simply the right thing to do. Please ask your fellow commissioners to follow your lead in not approving this ill-conceived notion. As always, thank you for your service to our community. Sincerely, Rodney K. and Edith C. Trotman ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ RESPONSE: From: "Debbie Lightsey" <Deborah.Lightsey@talgov.com> To: "rod trotman" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 Subject: RE: Lafayette Park Historical Preservation Overlay We have received voluminous e-mails on this topic and were unable to respond to all of them. The commission took steps to stop this process Wednesday night, but we did it with great reluctance because it was a citizen initiated process, not one begun by our government. I spoke very clearly Wednesday night about not moving forward with this initiative. Apparently you are not aware of that action. We stopped it because of the tremendous rancor being generated and because of our belief that the system we have in place now does not work well for large areas with considerable housing type diversity seeking the HP overlay. It was not set up to do this, and certainly does not handle it well. Our staff's efforts all along has been to try to manage as best as possible and make fair and reasonable a process that had gone offf the rails early on. A process review is underway now to develop something that may work better the next time a group of our residents wishes to establish some protections for historic properties. I cannot follow all your comments. We did nothing to deter the democratic process. In fact our willingness to let his run so long was based on letting a public initiated process continue. In my 20 years of service, I have never seen such a divisive neighborhood issue nor one over which we received correspondence with so many vicious remarks and personal attacks: neighbor against neighbor, advocates against our staff, opponents against our staff, and many folks against members of volunteer boards like the ARB. I appreciate your previous support. However, I do not regret defending our city employees whose role in this was peripherial. Whenever they try to staff a very divisive issue they get shot at by people on both sides and can never defend themselves. It is unfair for them and their integrity to be attacked. Debbie Lightsey	John and Kathy Bell February 16, 2009 Mayor John Marks Commissioner Debbie Lightsey Commissioner Mark Mustian Commissioner Andrew Gillum Commissioner Allan Katz Regarding: Lafayette Park Historical District Dear Elected Official: As homeowners in Lafayette Park we are adamantly opposed to the change in use of our property that the proposed Historical District overlay will impose. We have thoroughly reviewed the Myers Park Residential Historic District Design Guidelines and are appalled at the restrictions in legal right to enjoy the use of our property that such a guideline will have on our property. Our house was built in 1930 by the Wesson Family and we are the third owners of the property. The second owners, Wayne, H. and Anne Coloney converted the wonderfully large attic into a great room that spans the entire first floor. We were fortunate enough to have the opportunity to purchase the house in 2003. Having only two bathrooms and closets that were less than shoulder width in size along with a “garage” that consisted of a detached tin roof covered shed, we decided to expand the house by adding an enclosed/connected garage and a master bedroom suite (with walk-in closets). We used a noted local architect and a wonderful interior designer to create an expansion that was complimentary to the original structure while adding conveniences that would be compatible with current market expectations for the price-point we felt the house would justify. Everyone that has toured our house has praised the end result. As we read the Myers Park Design Guidelines, we would have never even bothered to put an offer on the house for fear that we would not be able to modify the structure in a manner that would fit our needs, much less be able to update the structure for current market expectations. One of the aspects of our neighborhood that we enjoy is the diverse differences in housing opportunities that exist. The structure immediately east of our house is duplex that was constructed in 1952. It shares absolutely no historical attribute with our house, but yet it provides housing for people that would otherwise have to live elsewhere. When we walk down the street to enjoy a meal at a local restaurant, we often greet the very people that work in that restaurant, because we are neighbors. While that is a significant aspect of where we live, we feel that one day the duplex next door may be torn down in order to build a house that may be many times grander than our house. That, to us, is the American dream and the absolute right that our next-door neighbor has by right of ownership. As we read the Myers Park Design Guidelines, our next-door neighbor is forever locked into the existing use of his property because the inherent mixed use of Lafayette Park is an important part of the historical value that is to be protected by the zoning overlay. This is patently unfair, deprives our next-door neighbor of the highest and best use of his property and would constitute a theft by government of the full value of his property rights. On a final note, we collectively canceled each other’s vote in the recent Presidential election; however, we stand firmly together on the issue of being opposed to the taking of our property rights with regard to the proposed Lafayette Park Historical District. We both voted in opposition during the recently conducted “survey” by the Planning Department and are appalled at the apparent disregard of our vote by the Planning Department as being somehow miss-informed. We consider ourselves as being very well informed. We have evaluated the positions statements mailed and hand-delivered to our house by both sides of the issue. We have researched the Myers Park Design Guidelines and have listened to arguments both for and against the proposed Historical Overlay. In the final analysis, we are NOT convinced that it is in our best interest, nor the best interest of our neighbors to let a vocal minority of individuals impose unnecessary restrictions on our rights to fully enjoy the use of our property. All one needs to do is read the Myers Park Design Guidelines to understand the negative effect that government intrusion will have on their individual property rights. The Florida Building Code and the current local zoning ordinances are all the protection we need. We do not need an additional layer of subjective and possibly arbitrary “protection” in order to maintain the historical significance of our neighborhood. Let the individual property owner and the market decide what is best for Lafayette Park. Do not add an artificial restriction that will devalue our investment while placating the subjective “sense” of space of a few. Please do not ignore the results of the Planning Department’s survey that was sent out via registered mail in which 230 lot owners voted in opposition as opposed to 115 lot owners that voted in support of the Historical Overlay. Out of 443 surveys mailed out, this is a significant public voice that you cannot ignore. The very fact that your own Planning Department wants you to ignore the results of a public survey is reason enough to be suspect of any justification they may present to the contrary. Please vote NO on February 24, 2009. Respectfully submitted for your consideration, John Bell Kathy Bell	February 23, 2009 To: Tallahassee/Leon County Planning Department/Planning Commission Mayor John Marks and Members of the Tallahassee City Commission We received the Jan. 9, 2009 survey by certified letter from the Tallahassee-Leon Planning Department regarding the nomination of Lafayette Park for the Local Register of Historic Places and Lafayette Park Historic Preservation Overlay. We returned our survey, as directed, in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope by Jan. 21, 2009. We also wrote a letter dated Jan. 16, 2009 and hand delivered it to the Planning Department Office on Macomb Street . On the survey we voted NO, we DO NOT support the placement of Historic Preservation Overlay zoning on the depicted properties in Lafayette Park. Our concern is that we have read the TLCP Planning Commission Staff Report at http://www.talgov.com/planning/pdf/lnd_use/lafayette_park_hpo_report.pdf and it states that the Commission is not going to consider the results of their Jan. 9, 2009 survey of the neighborhood residents. It is hard to understand why “due to circumstances related to the survey, staff recommends not utilizing the data collected from the survey” (page 8 of TLCP Planning Commission Staff Report, Feb. 3, 2009). In reading this Staff Report, the only “circumstances” seem to be that 25 people (out of 444 people) did not make the trip to the Post Office to pick up their certified letter, and there was some alleged “misinformation” sent out to residents of Lafayette Park concerning the HPO. When a survey, vote, or election is lost by a two thirds majority, one cannot choose to ignore the results because one thinks the opposing side used misinformation. According to the Staff Report (page 7) this survey “was intended to be a tool, in which the decision makers could utilize, that was developed by an unbiased party of the issue at hand.” According to the results of this survey that was “developed by an unbiased party” the majority of the Lafayette Park Neighborhood is against the proposed Historic Preservation Overlay. “The staff” may think that the results of the survey were due to some misinformation or problems getting to the post office, but we are concerned that someone is just trying to explain away results that were either unexpected or undesired. Looking at the Citizen’s Responses (attachment #15 from the Staff Report online), it should be obvious that it was not just a simple majority of people voting ‘no’ on a survey. The overwhelming majority of people who felt strongly enough about the situation to write a letter were opposed to the Historic Preservation Overlay before the survey was sent. There are approximately 31 letters written against the HPO and 1 letter written in support before the Survey was sent out on January 9, 2009 (and before the alleged misinformation). After the survey, approximately 24 letters were written against the HPO, and 3 letters written in support. If the Commission would please take another look at this attachment to their own staff report, it is obvious even without the survey results that the majority of the residents are opposed to the Historic Preservation Overlay. Since Lafayette Park Neighborhood has such an eclectic mix of eras and styles of homes, we do not feel that anyone can preserve its character by imposing restrictions. Its character is defined by the fact that it has continued to evolve through the decades with new and different types of homes. That is exactly what we enjoy most about this neighborhood where we have lived for over 25 years in the home we own. There are some individual homes that would be great to preserve, and it would be wonderful if those homeowners individually applied for historic recognition/preservation of their own home. But please let the rest of the neighborhood continue to improve as it has in the past. If you still insist on imposing a Historic Preservation Overlay, we would like to formally request that you remove our house at 521 McDaniel Street from the list of included parcels. Rodney & Linda Atherton ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2-19-09 Dear Mayor Marks (& City Commission) Re: Lafayette Park HPO You have, no doubt, received many letters pro and con regarding the Lafayette Park HPO zoning change. Please add one more to the opposition pile. The house I own on Beard Street, built in 1939, was my childhood home. I initially thought that historic preservation was a good idea and that it would increase property values. I changed my mind as I learned more details of the additional requirements above and beyond our already existing zoning and permitting regulations. We do not need additional layers of regulation which amount to imposing a "super" homeowners association on a long existing neighborhood without their consent. Having to get permission from the city or an architectural review board (ARB) to reroof a house, replace windows, remodel, etc. is excessive. Getting the usual building permits with inspections is sufficient. I understand that the ARB can delay these repairs 30-60 days. A supermajority of residents oppose this additional regulation and it makes sense that prospective buyers would find this neighborhood less desirable. If new buyers look for homes elsewhere or owners defer maintenance, values could go down rather than up. I know that I would not seek property in such an area and strenuously object to it being imposed in spite of a clear mandate. As a non-leader of either side, I offer a few observations. It is my understanding that a particular remodel job in the neighborhood was objectionable to some neighbors. This prompted the application for this process you now must decide. I also learned that, when asked, the city employee who would oversee this process determined that the same remodel job WOULD BE APPROVED under the proposed plan with the exception of windows! Ironically, something that started over a right desire to improve the neighborhood has degenerated into a fight of a few for a process that will not result in neighborhood improvement initially expected. It appears from reports of public meetings that some ARB, Planning Commission and involved city employees have stepped out of their roles of objective review into being proponents of the plan. Why? Perhaps they were surprised by the vote and can't turn the ship around. Why else would the commission be told that they could disregard the vote conducted at city expense? Also, I learned that many residents of Myers Park neighborhood are not happy with implementation of their historic zoning and wish they didn't have it. As you sort out all of this, I hope you will deny the application for Lafayette Park. Perhaps you could initiate a conversation with the existing historic areas in a town meeting style. Learn what is right and wrong with the process before adding another one. This one is definitely flawed. Lafayette Park began as a very modest neighborhood, (basically still is) and has become a popular area because of its convenient "Midtown" location. I would guess that most of the remodeling has been done (the horse is out of the barn) but most of it has been done well. Please drive the area, perhaps with a historic zoning employee, and see for yourself that additional regulation is unnecessary. Do we really need to be told what color roof or paint or windows we need? Presently, the city doesn't need the expense of regulating a neighborhood that doesn't need regulating, the neighborhood doesn't want it, so please vote against the Lafayette Historic zoning application. Thank you for all you do to make Tallahassee a great place to live. Sincerely, Martha Tilden	TO: City Commission & Planning Commission Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:24 AM Subject: Lafayette Park Overlay Dear Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I am very concerned about the recent events regarding the Lafayette Park proposed historic preservation overlay. While I am opposed to the overlay, I am most troubled by the Planning Commission’s complete disregard for the will of the majority of Lafayette Park homeowners who completed one of the commission’s survey ballots to register their opposition to the overlay. No doubt the commission went to great effort and taxpayer-funded expense to send the ballots by certified mail, only to completely ignore the results. Article VI of the Planning Commission bylaws provides for a citizen participation process with a goal “to foster a sense of partnership between government and the public; to create a sense of ownership and informed consent on the part of the public regarding the plan and the planning process; and to create a sense of trust between government and the public.” How disappointed I am in the actions of the Planning Commission and its staff. It is my hope that at the February 24 meeting of the Planning Commission, this entire issue will be laid to rest and the trust between the local government and the majority of Lafayette Park homeowners will be restored. Thank you, Alicia Trexler ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 6:59 PM Subject: Designation of Lafayette Park Historical District and Zoning Overlay Dear Mayor and Commissioners I have lived in Tallahassee over 40 years and owned the home at 1203 Terrace Street in the Lafayette Park neighborhood since 1994. I am opposed to the designation of the neighborhood as a historical district and have so voted at every opportunity. Although, it is my understanding that the majority of the residents voted to oppose the designation, it is likely that the proposal will pass in spite of our democratic action. Please do not let this happen. Thank you, Rex Pearce
FROM: Leon County Commissioner Bob Rackleff RE: Complaints gainst Planning commissioner sitting also on ARB board.. 2-19-09 As I thought, and our county attorney confirmed this, Planning Commissioner Cathy Kendall has no "conflict of interest" in exercising her collateral duty to vote on matters before the Architectural Review Board. She is the designated member of the ARB by Leon County Ordinance 10-2.361. Herb Thiele has stated that, I quote, So it is clear that Ms. Kendall's participation on the ARB is authorized by ordinance, and the fact that she is also a Planning Commission member was known to and expected by the BCC when the ordinance setting forth the membership criteria and participation was enacted. Therefore, we do not agree that Ms. Kendall has an inherent conflict of interest requiring recusal merely by being a member of both boards. Further, your allegations of misconduct and calls for us to "investigate" Ms. Kendall's performance impugn the character of a dedicated volunteer and accomplished professional and do not help your cause. I have known Ms. Kendall for 10 years when she served on our planning staff and now on the Federal Highway Administration staff. Without pay, she routinely volunteers many hours of service to our community in her service as a Planning Commissioner, where she has served ably and impartially to further our growth management and sustainability goals. I am confident that her deliberations about the proposed historic preservation overlay will continue this pattern of impartial service to our community. As a county commissioner, I will have no direct role in deciding this issue, but please know that I support constructive efforts to preserve our historic architectural heritage. Leon County is the most historic community in Florida, except for Pensacola and St. Augustine, yet we have allowed unbridled development to erase most of it -- to the extent that we are fast becoming Anytown USA. We are losing not just buildings, but our memory, uniqueness and character. Also, as the owner of the historic Mamie Green home at 816 Cherry Street for 20 years (she was the first woman elected to statewide office in Florida, in 1930), I supported efforts to establish a historic district in Lafayette Park and renovated my home only after conferring with historic preservation experts and preserving its essential character. In reviewing a summary of the historic preservation standards, I don't find anything objectionable or onerous. In fact, they are urgently needed. We cannot afford to lose more buildings like the recently-demolished house at the north entrance to the Calhoun Street historic district. Having lived in Lafayette Park and now in Old Town for over 22 years, and many acquaintances and friendships here, I also have a good idea of what homeowners feel about the proposal. You are still welcome to press your points throughout this process by presenting facts in your favor. Just stick to the facts. Forget the uniformed innuendo. Bob Rackleff bob.rackleff@gmail.com	2-20-2009 Mr. Bob Rackleff, You surprise and disappoint me. As the originator of the formal complaint against Ms. Cathy Kendall, I would have expected the courtesy of a phone call to discuss something about which you obviously have strong feelings. I did not expect to have to find out your position from a second hand email. Let me address the issues you bring up: The conflict with Ms. Kendall: The Planning Commission role and the Architectural Review Board roles are subsequent stages for many items following the same path. Not everything can be written down clearly in the laws, and that's why we have people like you as our commissioners to judge and evaluate the positions they fill with appointments. You and our other county commissioners have failed the citizens in Leon County with this dual-role appointment. You just didn't think it through. You made a mistake this time, and no amount of righteous indignation will change that fact. You placed an honorable person in an untenable position of conflict which has compromised the rights of Leon County citizens to expect fair hearings and review. You have to recognize this and make a correction to your mistake. It does not have to be a public hanging of Ms. Kendall. You owe her an apology equal to the apology she owes us for failing to recuse herself on such an issue. I've been at your meetings when people were being confirmed for appointments. Just last week your governing body passed half a dozen appointments without enough discussion on the entire group to even remember their names or the positions you were appointing. You have let the habit of letting political favors and simple time-saving expediency take the place of wisdom and thought--all of you commissioners should go back and listen to the tape of your last meeting. You shame our form of government by such a slack effort. You know it. If you don't listen to the tape, I challenge each of you to recall and write all the names and positions you appointed just last week. Commissioner Rackleff, I respect and admire you tremendously. I cheer your lone position so often as being "the right thing" and the "voice of reason". I am not trying to disparage you. We all make mistakes, and you are in a position where so many decisions come your way that mistakes are inevitable. The key here is recognizing them and finding the right solution to recognize the harm and undo it. You have this gracious ability and I believe you can apologize to Ms. Kendall quite successfully, when you remove her from office. Historic Preservation topic: I am quite certain you were on a roll when writing your flaming email, which was quite a burst of indignation, and read very well. You're good. However, please don't admit to being so ignorant about Florida's history. You could not visit the historic towns and cities in Florida in six weeks of steady traveling. So many of our state's communities have taken positive steps for historic preservation that have encouraged citizens to work for each of their own properties' future. We don't have those incentives in Leon county that other communities have. We don't have that carrot to reach for. We don't have property tax incentives; we don't have grants available, unless we give up ownership of our decision rights; we don't have community leaders with the fortitude and commitment to never let up on the issue. All we have in Tallahassee and Leon County is a set of codes that are equivalent to a club: the opposite of a carrot! Right now, we are threatened in Lafayette Park with the possibility of having every decision we want to make regarding our homes made for us without consideration of what we really want to do within our budgets. If we want to appeal that decision, we have to go to the next step, with one of the same identical board members! The entire preservation code is built around, and falls by default, to the personal opinions of one man in the historic trust, who simply has shown he cannot be trusted with governing our personal homes' development. Mr. Rackleff, you chose to renovate your historic home on Cherry Street and voluntarily worked with experts. We are working to preserve that same choice. You, and all the other commissioners know that shoving a program down our throats through an illegal, partisan board, and threats of fines will result in the decay and decline of our neighborhood. It will not result in the spontaneous effort to make every decision an historically accurate one. This throat-shoving is going to lead to the end of all preservation efforts in our hometown. The laws are going to be challenged, if they are not changed, and the scars from the battle will prevent any reasonable efforts at preservation from being put on the table for decades. If you don't wake up to this fact and take the action you are authorized as a leader to take, you will share cause for the loss of preservation in our community. Mr. Rackleff, you need to stand up and lead. Not shout down someone who has pointed out an obvious conflict that is harming our community. Don't cling to a mistake. Mark S. Daniel Lafayette Park and Myers Park property owner.