The April issue of the PAPER carried a reply to my previous criticism of the Historic District Ordinance.
I appreciate the objective unemotional tone of the letter and hope it will be part of a continuing dialogue, which — hopefully — will result in a better piece of legislation — or perhaps no legislation at all.
I appreciate the hard work that has gone into the Historic District Proposal and agree that the method they have chosen — rehabilitation — for implementing historic district idea is by far the best of the various alternatives they have considered, but I still feel that as presently written, the Historic District Ordinance is a remedy whose side effects are far worse than any of its curative powers. No doubt I should have made my objections known earlier, but then the time to bitch is forever, and I’m glad the PAPER providing me with this opportunity to do my griping in public.
The Historic District Committee’s letter states (accurately) that I am opposed to the ordinance because I think it will aid in the creation of an upper income ghetto. They seem to feel that maybe the reverse is true, and in their argument they have come up with a neat prescription against redlining. Poor people, they tell us, have a hard time becoming homeowners because the banks won’t lend them any money. Now if we can upgrade the property in a neighborhood, the banks will be impressed by its credit-worthiness and money will start flowing to everyone including poor people. If that formula would work, Creve Coeur and Ladue would be the ideal places for poor people to buy into.
The reason it won’t work is that a bank is a place where you can borrow money if you can prove you don’t need it, and any time the banks start investing heavily in Skinker-DeBaliviere you may be sure that the last poor person has left the neighborhood. Only HUD (through Section 235) has been willing to take the necessary chances to promote people from lower income groups to the status of homeowners.
The Historic District Committee has also come to grips with my charge that the provisions of the ordinance can easily be abused by various vigilantes in the neighborhood. I wish I could feel assured by the committee’s assertion that the members of the Landmarks and Urban Design Commission are all honorable men who would never be a party to such a scheme.
The insidious thing about building code abuse is that it is not necessary to break the law in order to use the code for purposes that have nothing to do with its intent; all one has to do is to enforce it. In the case of the dilapidated porches it’s all perfectly legal: Anyone who can’t afford to fix his porch is obviously poor. So by enforcing the porch provision of the Historic District. Ordinance it is possible to eliminate the problems of having a poor person living nextdoor. One of these problems frequently is crime. So by applying the law in the right place the neighborhood can rid itself of a crime center.
But there is also a more subtle way in which the Historic District Ordinance is discriminatory, and it has to do with the impact which rehabbers have had on the older, less affluent, mostly black residents whom they are displacing. Anyone who attended last night’s meeting with FNMA representatives must be painfully aware of the resentment which these older residents feel and of the additional problems caused by the fact that communication between the two groups is practically nonexistent.
The mechanics by which this strained relationship will manifest itself if the Historic District Ordinance becomes law are something like this: A rehabber is nailed with a porch citation. He is badly strapped for cash. So he calls SDCC to explain that he’s just put on a new roof and can’t possibly afford to rebuild his porch at this time. It is unlikely that his plea will be ignored, and he’s bound to get an extension of time. Would a resident with a 235 loan avail himself of the same opportunity? I doubt it. Rightly or wrongly he perceives the rahabbers’ establishment as the Enemy, and people do have their pride you know.
We are all agreed, it seems, that we want this neighborhood to be as open as possible to people of all backgrounds – social, racial or economic.
The Historic District Committee’s letter made a strong statement to that effect and I’m sure it is sincere. That is why I’m completely baffled by their failure to see the way in which their proposal works against this commonly shared goal. Maybe in drafting the ordinance they have been so busy researching the architectural significance of this neighborhood that they haven’t had time to think about the social implication of their proposal, but perhaps my harping on the subject has had some effect. If it has, if they begin to see the way the Historic District Ordinance works to disadvantage the disadvantaged,
then it’s not too late to modify the draft. Now that we have begun talking to each other, let’s direct our common efforts to changes in the ordinance which would eliminate its discriminatory effect. Mike Stahl
Originally published in The Paper, May 1977.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Archival transcription note: Printed rahabbers and missing is after PAPER retained as source wording.
Original source: SD_Times1977_05.pdf, printed page(s) 2, 3; PDF page(s) 2, 3.
