此内容暂无简体中文译文，以下为英文原文。
Editor: The December issue of the PAPER contained an invitation from the Historic District Committee to find illustrious residents of our neighborhood. I’m glad the Committee refers to this indulgence as snobbery, because that term applies to a lot more aspects of the Historic District Ordinance than the rather innocent boosterism it is trying to promote.
There seems to be an assumption on the part of the committee that we have a neighborhood consensus in favor of this legislation and all we need to do right now is to agree on the wording. They apparently feel that the difficult question raised by their proposal need not be discussed. Well, there is no consensus; there is instead bitter opposition. And so, at the risk of making a neighborhood pest of myself, let me write once more what I think these issues are.
We are being asked to go along with an addition to the city building code that amounts to a building restriction which applies to this area only. Granted it is not a restriction of the illegal kind which was outlawed by the Supreme Court decision of 1954. Granted it is only a token restriction. Granted also that the ordinance will raise the value of property in this area, and that most of us will get this benefit without paying one thin dime for it. Granted all these qualifiers, the fact still remains that the Historic District Ordinance is a step away from the principle of open housing towards exclusiveness and, yes, snobbery. Less than a handful of property owners will be stuck with bills of $2,000 for renovating their front porches and even fewer will be forced to sell their homes because they can’t afford that expense. But many, many potential homeowners will have to stay out of here because like Webster Groves and the Central West End, this neighborhood will be beyond the means of families with low to moderate incomes. Do we want this area to be an exclusive upper middle class neighborhood?
A dozen or so years ago, Skinker DeBaliviere produced bargain real estates values which made it possible to put into practice the principle that rich and poor and black and white neighbors could live together in harmony. The neighborhood’s present vitality proves that the faith of the pioneer renovators was amply justified. Now let’s remain true to those principles by keeping it open for everyone!
Mike Stahl
Originally published in The Paper, February 1977.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Archival transcription note: Source identifies Supreme Court restriction decision as1954; preserve original date without endorsing legal-history accuracy.
Original source: SD_Times1977_02.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
