To: The Editor

RE: Historic preservation bill

From: Neil Lifson, Spruce Hill

Councilwoman Blackwell's letter in last week's Press/Review about her historic preservation bill neglected to mention two important facts. [Click here to read the letter in question by Mrs Blackwell.] First, though she claims to speak for beleaguered homeowners who would somehow find a historic district to be an onerous burden, Ms. Blackwell fails to note that Spruce Hill in fact has one of the lowest rates of home ownership of any neighborhood in the city.

This is because a large proportion of the homes in Spruce Hill are owned by absentee landlords who earn their income by renting to university students. These landlords, who contribute generously to Ms. Blackwell's campaign coffers, should be held to a very high standard of property maintenance ... but in fact often are among the worst offenders around when it comes to preserving the irreplaceable historic fabric of their properties.

If Spruce Hill's homeowners are beleaguered, it is because of the destructive practices of these landlords. Not surprisingly, these same landlords are among those most vehemently opposed to the Spruce Hill historic district, a position they have undoubtedly made known to the Councilwoman.

Case in point: Many of these rental properties house large numbers of students (5-10, or more), clearly violating L&I regulations for occupancy density in single-family homes (limited to 3 unrelated persons). The absentee landlords benefit greatly from City officials' (including Ms. Blackwell's) "look-the-other-way" stance on this issue. Rents commanded from students, even in sub-par housing, are extremely high. Regular homeowners are subjected to the "fallout", without any say in the matter, and without compensation for their lowered quality-of-life (issues related to noise, parking, property maintenance, trash, tacky "renovations", etc.) Why isn't Ms. Blackwell fighting for the beleaguered homeowner on this very prominent issue?

The answer, as before, lies in who contributes most to Ms. Blackwell's campaign coffers. Make no mistake about it: the rental business is Big Business in Spruce Hill. That is its "industry".

Second, Ms. Blackwell claims that in Spruce Hill "a small minority was able to decide for more than 20,000 people that their neighborhood should be considered for historic designation." (As an aside, this 20,000 figure is very much exaggerated, has no basis in any census figures I have seen, and includes many thousands of transient students.) Anyone familiar with the Historical Commission's process for designating historic districts, however, knows that the Commission is required to contact all affected property owners in writing at least twice.

In addition, the Historical Commission schedules multiple public meetings in the community, posts notices of the meetings throughout the community including a map of the proposed district, and advertises the public meetings in newspapers ... all in a concerted, conscientious and scrupulous effort to explain the proposed historic district to all concerned. If transparency is what the Councilwoman is after in the public process, well, what could be more transparent than that?

When Ms. Blackwell speaks of "a small minority", I presume that she is referring to the Spruce Hill Community Association and to the University City Historical Society -- two groups that have existed for many decades. These community groups have memberships consisting of individuals and households who have demonstrated a long-term commitment to improving their community, as opposed to the absentee landlord sector ... whose primary goal is simply to maximize their real estate profits from a largely transient student clientele.

By neglecting to address these two issues, Councilwoman Blackwell leaves her true motivations in this bill open to speculation.

To: The Editor

RE: So are they all, all honorable men

From: Alan Krigman, 30-year resident and on-the-spot landlord

In his letter to the University City Review last week, Neil Lifson stated, "a large proportion of the homes in Spruce Hill are owned by absentee landlords." Golly, here I've been thinking that the vast majority of neighborhood housing providers either lived in the area, or lived nearby and had offices in the area or even worked in their own buildings on pretty much a daily basis. So, since property ownership is a matter of public record, Neil has obviously researched the topic and knows how many landlords are faraway. After all, Neil wouldn't sully his integrity or embarrass those with whom he's allied in this historic designation debacle by making a false statement, especially in print. For Neil is an honorable man, so are they all, all honorable men.

Neil further stated that these same landlords "contribute generously to [Councilwoman] Blackwell's campaign coffers." Campaign contributions are also a matter of public record, so Neil undoubtedly can prove this assertion. After all, Neil wouldn't sully his integrity or embarrass those with whom he's allied in this historic designation debacle by making a false statement, especially in print. For Neil is an honorable man, so are they all, all honorable men.

Another of Neil's claims was that these absentee landlords "often are among the worst offenders when it comes to preserving the irreplaceable historic fabric of their properties." Neil has unquestionably done a thorough inventory of the neighborhood and has figures to back this contention. After all, Neil wouldn't sully his integrity or embarrass those with whom he's allied in this historic designation debacle by making a false statement, especially in print. For Neil is an honorable man, so are they all, all honorable men.

Finally, Neil said, "Many of these rental properties house large numbers of students (5-10, or more), clearly violating L&I regulations for occupancy ... [and] absentee landlords benefit greatly from City officials' (including Ms Blackwell's) ‘look-the-other-way' stance on this issue." Neil surely wouldn't have made such a statement unless he could substantiate it with data showing how many of the 13,000 or so tenants in Spruce Hill are in fact "students" who live in illegally-rented single-family homes with 4-9 or more roommates, as opposed to a mix of residents, students and nonstudents alike, who live in legally zoned and licensed small apartments. After all, Neil wouldn't sully his integrity or embarrass those with whom he's allied in this historic designation debacle by making a false statement, especially in print. For Neil is an honorable man, so are they all, all honorable men.

So, I'm confident that Neil will be happy to produce documentation backing up his allegations. It would, after all, be the honorable thing to do. And Neil is an honorable man. Perhaps the April Spruce Hill Community Association Board of Directors' meeting — his being a member of that Board of honorable men and women pushing for historic designation and whatnot — would be a convenient time and place to do so. See you there, Neil.

An important fact we all need to keep in mind is that only 18% of the properties in the proposed Spruce Hill Historic District are owned by single families. All other properties are owned/controlled by developers and landlords. That's less than one out of five. We can fight over the facts and nuances of period designation, paint colors, spindles, slate, etc. but except for zoning, historic designation, is the only other city program that has the ability to give such a minority some control over what happens to a neighborhood as unique as ours. Do we really believe that the majority of other 82% cares at all what happens to Spruce Hill outside of making money for themselves? This is a prime rental area and it always will be no matter what their buildings look like. They don't want anyone, not just you and me, telling them what to do.