I bought my house 8 years ago, a 1920 Colonial. Less than a year after
purchase, the city declared the neighborhood a historic district with
no input from the neighborhood residents.

My biggest problem is that one of the 150 year old oak trees on the
street in front of my house lost a major branch in an ice storm last
winter. The city came out and took the tree down, in the process part
of the tree hit my house and broke about a dozen slate roof tiles. The
city mailed me a check for $ 500 for repairs. I contacted every roofer
in the phone book, the low bid was $ 5,000 (10X what the city said it
would cost). Knowing that the roof has to be repaired, I okayed it and
the roofer went to the city for a permit which they denied. Said that
the slate roof was 85 years old and new slate would not match and I
would have to completely reroof the entire house, estimate $ 100,000.
This would be okay, except the house with a new roof would only be
worth $ 75,000 (okay, so it's not the best neighborhood to start with).

I have requested an exemption and been denied, any other solutions?
There have been 3 homes already abandoned in the neighborhood as the
repairs cost more than the cost of a functional house elsewhere.

Diane wrote:
I have requested an exemption and been denied, any other solutions?
There have been 3 homes already abandoned in the neighborhood as the
repairs cost more than the cost of a functional house elsewhere.

Get a lawyer, sue the city for the cost of their required repairs.

In ups.com "Diane"
wrote:

I bought my house 8 years ago, a 1920 Colonial. Less than a year after
purchase, the city declared the neighborhood a historic district with
no input from the neighborhood residents.

Sounds like your complaint is with your city, not some historical society
which you never mention in your post.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Unfortunately, it is a city sponsored Historic Society and the city I'm
living in is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy (declining home values
is cited by the current mayor for the problem).

My neighbor started a lawsuit and found that everything he did (and a
few things he didn't do) resulted in fines from code enforcement. His
is one of the now abandoned homes. He donated it to a charity that
tried to auction it, but there were no bids and the charity is refusing
to keep the place up.

In ups.com "Diane"
wrote:

Unfortunately, it is a city sponsored Historic Society

Most likely a city preservation committee which; Historical Societies
usually operate at the state level and generally don't have any
enforcement authority.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In article . com,
Diane wrote:

Unfortunately, it is a city sponsored Historic Society and the city I'm
living in is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy (declining home values
is cited by the current mayor for the problem).

My neighbor started a lawsuit and found that everything he did (and a
few things he didn't do) resulted in fines from code enforcement. His
is one of the now abandoned homes. He donated it to a charity that
tried to auction it, but there were no bids and the charity is refusing
to keep the place up.

Do you really want to make a $100,000 decision based on advice from a
newsgroup?

You need to talk to a good lawyer.

djb

--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: http://www.balderstone.ca
The other site, with ww linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

"Do you really want to make a $100,000 decision based on advice from a
newsgroup? "

Probably not, but asking for advice from others that may have been in
similar situations isn't a bad idea.

"You need to talk to a good lawyer"

I would do that too. And since what they are doing apparently is
affecting neighbors as well, I'd talk to them about possibly sharing
the costs of litigation. If you have 6 people to support legal action,
it becomes more feasible.

I'd also talk to your elected town officials. Go to town meetings and
address them there too so it's public. Make sure they know what's
going on. Sometimes they put things in motion and don't realize the
results. This sounds extremely unfair. On what basis did they
conclude that slate can't be found that would match close enough to the
existing roof?

Diane wrote:
I bought my house 8 years ago, a 1920 Colonial. Less than a year after
purchase, the city declared the neighborhood a historic district with
no input from the neighborhood residents.

My biggest problem is that one of the 150 year old oak trees on the
street in front of my house lost a major branch in an ice storm last
winter. The city came out and took the tree down, in the process part
of the tree hit my house and broke about a dozen slate roof tiles. The
city mailed me a check for $ 500 for repairs. I contacted every roofer
in the phone book, the low bid was $ 5,000 (10X what the city said it
would cost). Knowing that the roof has to be repaired, I okayed it and
the roofer went to the city for a permit which they denied. Said that
the slate roof was 85 years old and new slate would not match and I
would have to completely reroof the entire house, estimate $ 100,000.
This would be okay, except the house with a new roof would only be
worth $ 75,000 (okay, so it's not the best neighborhood to start with).

I have requested an exemption and been denied, any other solutions?
There have been 3 homes already abandoned in the neighborhood as the
repairs cost more than the cost of a functional house elsewhere.


You should to speak at the representatives meeting or whatever type of
meeting is held by the officials of your city. In Detroit, I see this a
lot. The members are often surprised at what there laws and regulations
have caused. And sometimes its just one or two jerks on a power trip,
and the top officials can get that fixed up.

--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert

$75,000 wouldn't buy you a shack in California.
I think the average home price is $400,000 in southern california and
higher than that in the San Francisco bay area.

Diane wrote:
I bought my house 8 years ago, a 1920 Colonial. Less than a year after
purchase, the city declared the neighborhood a historic district with
no input from the neighborhood residents.

My biggest problem is that one of the 150 year old oak trees on the
street in front of my house lost a major branch in an ice storm last
winter. The city came out and took the tree down, in the process part
of the tree hit my house and broke about a dozen slate roof tiles. The
city mailed me a check for $ 500 for repairs. I contacted every roofer
in the phone book, the low bid was $ 5,000 (10X what the city said it
would cost). Knowing that the roof has to be repaired, I okayed it and
the roofer went to the city for a permit which they denied. Said that
the slate roof was 85 years old and new slate would not match and I
would have to completely reroof the entire house, estimate $ 100,000.
This would be okay, except the house with a new roof would only be
worth $ 75,000 (okay, so it's not the best neighborhood to start with).

I have requested an exemption and been denied, any other solutions?

I'd suggest a large blue tarp over the roof and a sign in your front yard
that says "The town historical society won't let me fix my roof which was
damaged by the town's tree crew. Protect your property rights before its
too late!" :-)

Well since the other guy's use of a lawyer didn't go too well, it's
probably not a great idea to try something that already failed. I think
you should go to city council meetings and things like that and see if
you can get the attention of some sympathetic people. Maybe you could
even try to be elected. If that doesn't work, you could try to take
this story to local and national news shows and consumer advocates to
try to get some attention. That could put pressure on the city
government and get them to change things. How about calling your
congressman too. And I think you should get together as big a group of
people as possible to do these things with you. Maybe have a protest
march in front of city hall. It sounds to me like there are some major
assholes in the government that just want to **** with everyone hard
core.

By the way, what would happen if you went ahead and repaired the roof
without a permit? What would happen if you just ingored the city
government and tore up any papers they give you?

I'd like to thank everyone for their suggestions while I''ve been out
of town. The group of neighbors I've been talking with has made a few
discoveries which are directing our efforts.
1. Over half the homes in our neighborhood are rental and are not under
the control of the historical society as they are considered commerical
property.
2. The 5 members of the society live in 2 different neighborhoods
which are both older than mine and have much more elaborate brickwork
and are of more historical significance and are not under the aegis of
the societies control.
Possible solutions:
As we are in the middle of an election for a new mayor, our group is
lobbing the mayoral candidates to:
1. include single family rental housing under the historic society
rules (****ed off landlords are a great way to get things changed that
poor and retired home owners can't)
2. Have the 3 oldest neighborhoods (including those of the society
members and the mayoral residence) included in the historic framework.
This sounded good to us. Let me know.

"Possible solutions:
As we are in the middle of an election for a new mayor, our group is
lobbing the mayoral candidates to:
1. include single family rental housing under the historic society
rules (****ed off landlords are a great way to get things changed that
poor and retired home owners can't)
2. Have the 3 oldest neighborhoods (including those of the society
members and the mayoral residence) included in the historic framework.
This sounded good to us. Let me know. "

And how does this fix YOUR problem? Why aren't you lobbying the
candidates to remove the historical designation from your neighborhood
or at least put some sanity into the process, instead of trying to
expand it?

In article .com,
wrote:
"Possible solutions:
As we are in the middle of an election for a new mayor, our group is
lobbing the mayoral candidates to:
1. include single family rental housing under the historic society
rules (****ed off landlords are a great way to get things changed that
poor and retired home owners can't)
2. Have the 3 oldest neighborhoods (including those of the society
members and the mayoral residence) included in the historic framework.
This sounded good to us. Let me know. "

And how does this fix YOUR problem? Why aren't you lobbying the
candidates to remove the historical designation from your neighborhood
or at least put some sanity into the process, instead of trying to
expand it?

I think he is going in the right direction. As is, the people who
impose the restrictions and not covered by the restrictions. With these
changes, the makers of the rules will have to follow them.

--
Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

"I think he is going in the right direction. As is, the people who
impose the restrictions and not covered by the restrictions. With
these
changes, the makers of the rules will have to follow them. "


First, he's proposing to extend the reqts to not only the folks that
make them, but also to rental properties in his own neighborhood,
trying to make life worse for others that aren't directly involved.
And suppose they go ahead and do it, then it just makes the historical
control board more powerful.

And second, the same folks who make the rules, interpret the rules.
You can extend the historical coverage to their properties, but what
makes you think they will apply them fairly? Much of this is very
subjective, in terms of what alterations are permitted and which ones
are not. They could easily give themselves more slace and still not
give this guy the right to repair his roof. I don't see why anyone
would try to extend historical coverage as a first line strategy, as
opposed to doing what makes the most sense, lobby to get the
designation withdrawn from the neighborhood properties. That is what
they need, isn't it?











Rich Greenberg wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
"Possible solutions:
As we are in the middle of an election for a new mayor, our group is
lobbing the mayoral candidates to:
1. include single family rental housing under the historic society
rules (****ed off landlords are a great way to get things changed that
poor and retired home owners can't)
2. Have the 3 oldest neighborhoods (including those of the society
members and the mayoral residence) included in the historic framework.
This sounded good to us. Let me know. "

And how does this fix YOUR problem? Why aren't you lobbying the
candidates to remove the historical designation from your neighborhood
or at least put some sanity into the process, instead of trying to
expand it?

I think he is going in the right direction. As is, the people who
impose the restrictions and not covered by the restrictions. With these
changes, the makers of the rules will have to follow them.

--
Rich Greenberg Marietta, GA, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 770 321 6507
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red & Shasta (RIP),Red, husky Owner:Chinook-L
Atlanta Siberian Husky Rescue. www.panix.com/~richgr/ Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

The reasoning behind our selection to include the rental property is
that the landlords in our city are wealthy in both terms of money and
political power. Most of the members of the city council are landlords
and would not be willing to live with some of the extreme measures that
the historical society has mandated.

To include additional neighborhoods will increase the number of
homeowners affected by the societies dictates and increase the
political power to mitigate some of their influence. Again most of the
city council, the mayoral candidates and the society members themselves
would have property in one of the affected neighborhoods, in addition
to the mayoral residence itself. And if the society began to selective
enforce their dictates, then we would have a stronger legal avenue,
possibly even enough for class action. There's even a judge in one of
the neighborhoods that we would like to include.

As to the possibility of remove the historical designation, there is no
precedent, and is deemed as the least likely scenario.

"The reasoning behind our selection to include the rental property is
that the landlords in our city are wealthy in both terms of money and
political power. Most of the members of the city council are landlords

and would not be willing to live with some of the extreme measures that

the historical society has mandated.

To include additional neighborhoods will increase the number of
homeowners affected by the societies dictates and increase the
political power to mitigate some of their influence. Again most of the

city council, the mayoral candidates and the society members themselves

would have property in one of the affected neighborhoods, in addition
to the mayoral residence itself. And if the society began to selective

enforce their dictates, then we would have a stronger legal avenue,
possibly even enough for class action. There's even a judge in one of
the neighborhoods that we would like to include. "


You obviously can do whatever you want. To me, your plan is a long
term strategy with all kinds of risks, to try to solve an immediate
problem of getting your roof fixed. Are you prepared to wait years to
make the repairs, while pursuing new council candidates, elections,
etc? IMO, all you're going to do is get a lot of people mad at you
and in the end not likely get what you want. For example, you're
trying to get the historical designation expanded to cover landlords,
town officials, etc., with the notion that these folks will then reign
in the historical control board. If these landlords and town
officials are half as powerful as you think, why would they simply not
just prevent the designation from being expanded? That's what I would
do. I wouldn't waste my time worrying about relaxing it on other
areas. And if that happens, you will have just made enemies of some of
the people you need to help you.

Rather than worrying about the future and strategies that could take
years, have you met with the current mayor and council members? Met
with the municipality business administrator? Or sat down with the
historical control board members to discuss your situtation? Have you
taken samples of slate that you would use for repair so they can see
that they will match the existing roof ok and shown it to all these
folks? What did they say about your specific roof problem, which
seems like an obvious injustice?