Quick Update: Demolition Politics
There are two articles in today's Herald-Sun about the 'demolition moratorium' - one highlights the decision to seek the moratorium, and interviews Mike Woodard about why the city would seek to hold off on demolitions (with comments from me as well.)
Interestingly, there is a second article about how Constance Stancil went out to present pictures of the worst houses her department has demolished (burned, collapsing) to the Partnership for a New East Durham community group. And evidently she told the community that:
"People from outside North-East-Central Durham were moving to trying to prevent [her] from demolishing such properties"
The us-vs-them theme was echoed by Melvin Whitley - who posited that "Fireball White has an ally in a non-profit organization that doesn't even live here?" (I assume he is talking about Preservation Durham, but I don't know.)
I can't say how unfortunate I find this - quite obviously, the us-vs-them stance implies that Stancil is an unwilling participant in this 'summit' and doesn't feel the current demolish-'em-all mentality should be changed.
To be clear: I don't think anyone would argue that a truly-collapsing, burned-out structure should not be demolished. And while I am not a non-profit organization, I think it should be clear that I am no friend of what Fireball does with his properties.
For the city administration to try to sow the seeds of division between neighborhoods by highlighting our differences rather than our common ground is not acceptable. I welcome the input of anyone into this process, and I fully recognize the costs of vacant and abandoned property to the community.
But we've been forced into a false dichotomy - live with the horrible house in perpetuity, or tear it down. My position always has been to answer "none-of-the-above". Historic housing is a community asset, and, as such, it needs to be protected from demolition-by-neglect (blight) and demolition. We need to repair and revitalize these houses, at which point they will be a benefit to the community around them.
For a city employee to imply that we have no other choices, and that 'others' want to perpetuate blight in the community is nothing more than inciting the politics of division to protect her department's unchecked power.
Comments
Gary,
Until the Herald Sun article, I have reserved judgment on Constance Stancil. Clearly hers is not an easy job, and she follows in a long line of people who were either incompetent, or smart enough to run screaming once they understood the responsibilities and politics involved. I agree that her effort to gain support by dividing is unacceptable, and I'm afraid that I can no longer give her the benefit of the doubt as to whether she is behind the "demolish 'em all" mentality or just a pawn in the process. I do feel that others are behind this effort, and I fear that directly or indirectly developers have a hand in the movement, but Constance should realize that this is not us vs. them. I think it is also criminal to only show photos of the worst properties that have been torn down. I hope that "five local residents" that attended Ms. Stancil's presentation are invited to the summit to get the whole story.
Ollie S.
Personally, I was shocked at Ms. Stancil's actions at this meeting. Not only were they devisive, they completely misreprented the anti-demolition activists' stance. None of us support problem property owners like Fireball White, and many of us attempt to put our money and time where our mouth is by making offers to buy properties or trying to get them to put them on the market. I believe that Ms. Council deserves an immediate formal reprimand from the City Manager and City Council. I think that her actions are reprehensible, disrespectful of City Council members and their efforts to respond to the community, and a blatant attempt to fuel fires over this issue so that she can save face in light of her department's policies coming under scrutiny. As staff, she is supposed to support City Council's direction, not actively work to undermine it...if she wants to be a politician, then she should run for office. I am aghast...no other word for it.
Lack of crime control is why decent people who can afford to purchase, restore, and perserve historic properties do not do so. Instead, Durham fines property owners and demands properties to be repaired while vagrants steal and sell anything of value in and around the properties. If you really want to be shocked check the tax values of many of the properties mentioned. Many are not worth 25-50%. If Durham's civic leaders truly want historic preservation, they must resolve themselves to cleaning the neighborhoods of criminals, drug dealers, addicts, and prostitutes. City Hall is absolutely useless and incompetent. Nifong pandered to his constituants in Durham County. A State Federal Investigation of Durham's corrupt Governemt is long overdue. Certainly there are some great employees who work for the City and County. Those with authority seem satisfied with status quo which is unacceptable in a truly civilized locale.
Add new comment