April 14, 2008
At tomorrow’s council meeting: HPF appeal of ARB decision
Recently the Architectural Review Board approved the placement, for one year, of a 60′X25′ trailer at 503 W. Washington St (approximately in front of the Governor’s School). This site is owned by the Islamic Center and previously held a trailer (which burned nearly two years ago). The trailer would house the Islamic Center. They intend to build a permanent structure on the site. HPF has filed an appeal of ARB’s decision. The appeal will be heard at tomorrow’s council meeting.
As out-going president of HPF, I would like to comment on this appeal.
HPF has no quarrel with the Islamic Center community and their wish to worship at this location. We would welcome the establishment by them of an appropriate, permanent structure at 503 so that they can do so.
We believe, however, that the placement of a trailer in a historic district is counter-productive to the preservation efforts that are purportedly supported and encouraged by the ARB. We believe the ARB has made a grave error in approving this and has seriously damaged whatever good will it previously enjoyed among historic district home owners and the preservationists of Petersburg.
If you believe as we do, please come out in support of our appeal at this meeting. If you disagree with us, then it is your right to use the opportunity to voice your opinion, as well. Get your friends to come, too!
– David
The ARB decision was reversed by Council (I heard 2 no’s from council; but I did not hear each council person… not sure if the vote was 5 for reversal and 2 against, or 4 for and 3 against).
A few interesting points were raised…
The size the trailor was a substantial part of the size of the lot, raising the question of how construction of a new building could be erected with a 60×25 trailor on the site.
Given any construction would require ARB approvals along the way, the expectation that a new building would be erected within one year raised questions, esp. in light of the fact that no architectural designs have yet been submitted.
Members of HPF had asked Pathways if the latter would be willing to open its facility to the Islamic Center, so that the Center would have a place to worship and convene while a permanent structure at 503 was being constructed. Pathways agreed to talk with the Islamic Center about the possibility. The Islamic Center declined to contact Pathways to discuss. The representative of the Islamic Center stated that it was the decision of their board to pursue the use of their property, and that they felt it should be their decision as to how they used their property.
The ARB decision had been 4 to 1. The one dissenting member of the ARB noted that all the hoops they put property owners through in historic districts they did not apply in their decision in this case, and as such he voted against the rest of the board in its decision.
The representative of the Islamic Center stated that it was the decision of their board to pursue the use of their property, and that they felt it should be their decision as to how they used their property.
That is how we ALL feel. So what? You have to play by the rules in your area. I’m sure a drug-dealer feels they can use their property any way the wish too, and a madame. Sometimes, they are right.
What this shows me is that this islamic community has no respect for what the people in that neighborhood are trying to accomplish.
“The ARB decision had been 4 to 1. The one dissenting member of the ARB noted that all the hoops they put property owners through in historic districts they did not apply in their decision in this case, and as such he voted against the rest of the board in its decision.”
This is shocking. I feel I have had to jump through hoops to get minor things approved. I wanted to put expensive, period paneled shutters on a building and they told me they had to be louvered.
This is a real danger! I spoke at city council against a family being allowed to put asphalt roof on a house and tear off a leaky metal roof. Council was against me, and sentiment on the board (including David P.) was against me.
You can’t have one set of rules for one set of people, and another for another. That breeds lawlessness, lack of respect for rules and laws.
An african american friend of mine told me once that the ARB gets really hard on those it feels want to do the right thing, but suffer from the “soft bigotry of low expections” when it comes to african americans. He said they aren’t held to the same standards, unless they have already shown themselves to be good team players. ONLY THEN are they held to the standards. (this is probably only part-true) Perhaps the same is true for the islamic community.
I would nothing better than to have the islamic commnity make a large investment n petersburg, but how insular and bone-headed a PR move to just come here and litter??
I wanted to come, but had to work that evening.
Shawn says, “This is a real danger! I spoke at city council against a family being allowed to put asphalt roof on a house and tear off a leaky metal roof. Council was against me, and sentiment on the board (including David P.) was against me.”
I don’t recall the instance Shawn is talking about, but don’t doubt it occurred. I did serve on the ARB for a few years. I am absolutely certain that, while on the ARB, Shawn was not the only person who disagreed with some (or many) position(s) I took because at that time and in that context I felt those position(s) to be appropriate. While on the ARB (as in life in general), I had several opportunities to observe that intelligent and wise persons will often disagree about which standards apply and how to apply them in a concrete instance. I know, first hand, that work on the ARB can be, and usually is, a difficult job.
About the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” I agree that it occurs. I agree that it is a bad thing. On the other hand, I don’t believe that every accommodation to a crisis or hardship represents such an attitude. As to the line separating true hardship and selfish insistence on entitlement to undeserved special treatment — I confess to not being very good at drawing that line; perhaps because I am of a certain “political” bent, I suppose I more often err on the side of accepting a claim of hardship where it does not exist.
Having said that, and returning to the issue of the Islamic Center, I do not believe that they established a condition of hardship (even by my weak standards).
With Shawn, I was stunned not only by the notion that the ARB seemed to have not exercised even its usual diligence in this review. Furthermore, the reasons the ARB gave for providing the COA seemed to me (from the opposite corner, of course) to be feeble indeed.
The two council members voting to uphold the ARB decision were Mayor Mickens and Vice-Mayor Webb.
The shutters thing didn’t happen when you were on the board David, and it didn’t upset me. I thought paneled shutters would look classier, and a bit more distinctive.
The board said louvered (I guess because that is the general norm in old towne) so I took my lumps without complaint.
“As to the line separating true hardship and selfish insistence on entitlement to undeserved special treatment — I confess to not being very good at drawing that line; perhaps because I am of a certain “political” bent, I suppose I more often err on the side of accepting a claim of hardship where it does not exist.”
The wealthy feel entitled sometimes as well. If one makes exceptions for them, it has the same effect.
If that’s the case, I’ll plead hardship next time. Maybe then I’ll get my paneled shutters, if that is the magic principle-breaking formula. Maybe I’ll rob a bank while I’m at it. I can always use more cash…
Well, good for you for standing up for the neighborhood, and congratulations on your success, David. I understand that Mickens’ contituancy is rather hostile to the “historical people” so I’m not suprised. I don’t know where Webb’s ward is, so have no comment. For once.
Oppps. I realize you are talking about the metal roof now, not my shutters. It was when the arb voted against a tearing off of a roof, but asked council to overturn their decision.
Sorry.
“I don’t recall the instance Shawn is talking about, but don’t doubt it occurred. I did serve on the ARB for a few years. I am absolutely certain that, while on the ARB, Shawn was not the only person who disagreed with some (or many) position(s) I took because at that time and in that context I felt those position(s) to be appropriate.”
Oh, and, besides this roof issue, neither I or anyone I know has any issue with any decisions YOU made, though I am also sure that you right that there are some people who disagreed with you.
I don’t have a problem with the ARCHITECHUAL decisions, I disagree, as I have said, with the decisions based on who is standing in front of the board.
That’s not being fair.
You may have been part of this problem, but I don’t have any knowlege of that. I just know that you care more than most, and that’s certainly something.
What I HAVE heard is that the general perception now is that ARB has no teeth, is lax, and is a somewhat optional part of the process. That’s what loopholes do to principled rules.
It emboldens the rule-breakers.
AMEN, Brother!
“What I HAVE heard is that the general perception now is that ARB has no teeth, is lax, and is a somewhat optional part of the process. That’s what loopholes do to principled rules.
It emboldens the rule-breakers.”
Absolutely. My husband and I recently watched our neighbor “fix up” his porch in a very sloppy fashion. He had neither a COA or a permit to do the work and yet nothing was done when we reported this. We’re careful to following the proper channels and get approval for all changes that we make as we fix up our property and expect the same to be true for the other homeowners in our historic district.
This unfairness breeds a certain amount of resentment towards both our neighbors and the ARB. Based on conversations that I’ve had with fellow renovators and the comments written above, I’m not alone in these feelings.
The Mayor and Vice Mayor were the only nay’s on the vote to reverse.
I believe I understood the Imam to say that they’d already purchased the trailer(s) during his second opportunity at the podium. When Councilwoman Rice raised the possibility of putting the trailer in a different location - the Imam’s point was that the Washington Street location was the only property the Islamic Center owned. I wonder if there are any City owned properties where the Center could place the trailer.
If the City can dispose/transfer/give property to entities like Pathways, couldn’t they let the Islamic Center use an aquired property for a year if they had a suitable location? That way the Center has the time to build on a vacant lot and not worry about the size of the trailer and the Folley Castle Association doesn’t have to worry about the unsightly trailer.
…or am I being naive and wishful?
Is it possible the Islamic Center might bring some type of claim if they purchased the trailer (which I’m sure wasn’t cheap) after they received the blessing of the ARB and now they are stuck with this thing and no place to put it?
Chuck,
That’s possible. And the city being generous with a location is also possible — but I think any self-respecting community wil want to OWN the facilty they use, so they won’t feel too exposed to the changing winds of politics.
The truth is they were using the trailer that was used to fix up the ARGS, and, if I remember correctly, they only had permission to use THAT trailer “in the meantime” …. which meant “indefinately,” it would seem.
From the little I know, this is a community that HAS money, and is in no need of charity, and probably doesn’t want any.
“Is it possible the Islamic Center might bring some type of claim if they purchased the trailer (which I’m sure wasn’t cheap) after they received the blessing of the ARB and now they are stuck with this thing and no place to put it?”
Well, maybe they should sue the members of the ARB who gave them permission, and not the city.
If they sue the city, which means me, I will do EVERYTHING in my power to undermine good will for that community. You can’t just sue people and think you are not throwing the glove down. It would not be in their interest. Land is cheap in petersburg. Let them buy some land somewhere else. That would be the cheapest solution. The city could probably SWAP some land with them, they could even give them a bigger, better plot, with parking. That would make everyone happy (except xenophobes), and would save everyone money.
I personally wouldn’t have invested in infrastructure prior to all appropriate nods being secured first (if I followed, the appeal followed the day after the ARB decision?). In any event, one option would be to relocate the trailer elsewhere, as noted above, while a permanent structure was under construction. Another option is to sell the trailer and work in the Pathways building, for example. Many options abound, as from what I heard many parties were willing to help the Islamic Center out; just appeared to me that such other possibilities had not yet been explored.
From conversations with Mohammad, I believe it fair to say that they believe that 503 W. Washington St. is the spiritual home of their community. They started there and have been there for twenty or so years. Suggestions have been made that an alternative suitable site might be found, but the emotional ties to 503 are too strong to offset any alternative-site offers made to date.
I think Petersburg has way too many storefront and “regular” churches (I am including organizations such as the mosque here), but they seem to be what many people want.
Having said that, I truly don’t mind having the mosque in our neighborhood. I truly do not want, in our neighborhood, a trailer that will adversely affect the property values of my neighbors (I don’t care as much about my own since I don’t ever expect to sell — of course, things can change over time). And while we cannot choose all our neighbors, I would prefer to have — as almost all, in fact, are — neighbors who feel some responsibility towards each other. More plainly, in my opinion: some accommodation by the Islamic Center could have avoided this particular conflict entirely.
The muslims seem to be one of these groups who, like catholics, believe in “sacred ground.” So be it.
Let them honor that ground in the same spirit that they honor the ground where Mohammad’s namesake figured out what he wanted to do with his life:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Abraj_Al_Bait_-_Dar_Al_Tawheed_Hotel_-_Grand_Mosque_-_Mecca.JPG