DMI’s Plans for Mansion Hill

Oh yeah, the Edgewater was just a start . . . and they have plans to spend more of the TIF and keep the district open longer as well. Read it and weep.

They’re not waiting, time to charge ahead.

Hello everyone:
Please see the memo from Gary Peterson. We will discuss this at the June 24th Economic Development Committee meeting. Thanks for such a good meeting this AM.

Susan Schmitz
DMI President
Hovde Building
122 W. Washington Ave. Suite 250
Madison, WI 53703

Here’s the memo. It was written in April.

Date: April 28, 2010
To: DMI Economic Development Committee
From: Gary l. Peterson, AICP
Re: Historic Districts and the Edgewater Project

Many of you probably know that I have been a Community Planner for over 40 years. You might also recall that the City hired the firm of Crispell-Snyder, Inc. to conduct a Blight Study of the area that principally includes the two Historic Districts, Mansion Hill and Langdon Street. I conducted those studies. Prior to that, I conducted many Blight Studies in two states including in the 1960’s when the methodologies and standards in the studies were reviewed and approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I used those same standards and methodologies in the Mansion Hill and Langdon Street studies. What the studies found was that the area, comprised principally of these two Historic Districts, has many urban problems commonly found in older neighborhoods. In these two districts, the Historic designation has not worked to eliminate the urban problems. In fact it has probably compounded them and they could get worse before they get better.

Here is my view of the situation:

1. The areas designated as Historic Districts have problems:

a. Many buildings in the two districts are not historic.

b. Some parcels with buildings may not be contributing buildings.

c. Vacant parcels, in the form of parking lots, are listed as Contributing Buildings to the Historical Designation.

d. Several parking lots are gravel parking lots making their designation even more suspect.

e. As a Planner, I see that such misrepresentations create a creditability problem.

f. To rehabilitate or demolish a Historical Building or Contributing Building, an additional set of standards are imposed on the owner. As I understand it, these standards can be used to stop any change. Redevelopment or rehabilitation loses, further deterioration or blight wins.

2. The Historic Buildings within the Historic District have problems.

a. Many of the identified historical buildings and contributing buildings are blighted and many show long term neglect.

b. Several contributing and non-contributing buildings are vacant. Not only do they not contribute to the vitality of the neighborhood, but they also represent an “out of the ordinary” problem. This is not a location where you should find vacant buildings.

3. As I understand it, efforts to improve the neighborhood are being stymied and held hostage by historic designation and that includes development of what are now parking lots. There also appears to be no organized efforts to improve the neighborhoods.

4. Both the Mansion Hill and Langdon Street Districts are far short of their potential. Rather than a current asset to the City they are a liability. Both Historic Districts have major problems that distract significantly from what should be a high quality neighborhood. This opinion is verified by the fact at least 158 structures in February 2009 in the two districts were blighted. Please understand blighted is more than a term. Blighted represents moderate to major exterior elements of a structure are deteriorated. Paint will not fix blight. Blight repairs include new or significantly repaired roofs, widow replacement, siding renewal or replacement, and doors needing replacement and in some cases major repairs or replacement of foundations. In addition there are more than 250 Blighting Influences. The Blighting Influences in these districts include: land underutilization, lack of parking, identified hazards to health and safety (including 3 or more steps) with no hand rail, anti-freeze, oil, gas and automobile battery sitting in the open, corner building cornice protruding, exposed wires, uneven sidewalk, drop off adjacent to sidewalk, poor site conditions, poor walks and driveways, inadequate outdoor storage and screening, lack of handicap accessibility to building accessible by the public, graffiti, missing fence staves or parts, exposed electric box and wires, soil, bank and yard erosion, deteriorated, rotten, leaning and cracked retaining walls, and plugged storm drain.

5. What should be done:

a. Decide just what our Historical Districts are intended to do. Do we want them to preserve (at all costs) what exists (historical, non-historical, blight), stagnate new development, redevelopment and over all attraction? Or do we want to have areas of community pride that preserves truly historic structures and stimulates needed redevelopment? This effort will require City participation in cooperation with private interests. Private interests have created the blighted area. Private interests alone will not reverse current trends.

b. The validity and applicability of the Mansion Hill and Langdon Street Historical Districts need to be reviewed. This includes reviewing the boundaries and the designation of each property. The Districts need City wide review and an infusion of creditability. Have the reviews conducted by outside consultants using both historical attributes and also the economic feasibility of designating a building as historical or contributing building. We particularly need to review the boundaries where they have stretched past non-historical or non-contributing buildings just to pick up 1, 2 or 3 structures that are not historical. We can preserve our Historic areas without holding hostages.

c. The Landmarks Commission Ordinance was written many years ago and the goals and intent of the ordinance do not seem to be applicable today. The ordinance needs to be reviewed relative to content by which changes are reviewed. The lack of credibility and flexibility in the ordinance is obvious.

d. Utilize Tax Incremental District (TID) s.66.1105 and Neighborhood Improvement District (NID) s. 66.1110 funds to eliminate these urban problems

6. Why do we need TID and NID District participation? Why can’t the private sector do it alone? Examples from within the Historic Districts of why the Private Sector cannot and will not do it alone are as follows:

a. An existing 7 story obsolete, non-historical building needs to be replaced. An owner will not tear a 7 story building down and replace it with a two or three story building. TIF financing would be needed to absorb the write down in real estate value.

b. The most blighted building in the area is a frame 2 story house that has major foundation, wall, roof, window, and door deterioration. It shows decades of neglect. It is a relatively small house. There is nothing significant about it, yet it is listed as a Contributing Building. Dozens of houses in better condition are not being repaired, why would this one be rescued even if it is possible to rescue? If it is not physically possible to rescue it, it will only continue to be a blight on the neighborhood. The private sector will never rescue this house.

c. The third example is a large frame 3 flat. It was built as a three flat and now is divided into many apartments. Nothing grand about it but it is listed as a Contributing Building. Its problem is its size relative to the need of exterior repairs. The foundation is deteriorated and will continue to deteriorate. It is a very large building on a very large deteriorating foundation. All 3 levels of the structure’s exterior walls, roof, fascia and soffit need major repairs. A large number of windows on all 3 levels need replacing. The private sector will never do this.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful because Historic Districts are an asset to any City and, when taken care of, become an attraction that leads to the City’s growth. I volunteer for Downtown Madison, Inc. (DMI) and would be willing to work further on this important issue. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Gary Peterson, AICP
Sustainable Services, Inc.

I wonder how much TIF they want to spend in the area and how long they want to keep the schools from their tax growth.

I’d also be curious, are there any historic districts these folks would honor? Or should they be eliminated altogether? Do they think all historic districts are holding their neighborhoods hostage? If they are willing to declare war on the oldest and most precious of the historic districts, why bother having any at all? What examples would they give of where Historic Districts are an asset?