Tuesday, October 25, 2011

UPDATE: Poccia's website updated

I wandered over to Sean Poccia's website and see that it has been updated with questions from a citizen asking for his positions on various issues regarding Waxhaw.

I was particularly curious to read his response on the Waxhaw's historical preservation and was a little disappointed. Here it is:
Waxhaw historical district and preservation: As for the historical district, this is an area of great interest to me. We all know Waxhaw is rich in history and we have some phenomenal buildings that we need to ensure stay true to their heritage. I have participated in and closely followed the Waxhaw Historical Committee meetings and spoken with many residents who own, live in or operate out of a historical building. The several versions of the historical overlay are solid documents. As I recently stated in a Historical committee meeting, there are opportunities to continue creating excitement about the significance of historical preservation. One such idea that I have seen work brilliantly in other communities is establishing an annual (or bi-annual) historical preservation day whereas we create a city sponsored event and bring in experts from around our region who specialize in historical preservation. These types of events allow residents to learn about the techniques, products, services and participate in workshops etc. that will allow a home owner or historical building owner to learn of resources and techniques about preservation. It's been said that knowledge is power and if we really want to become a city where preservation isn't just something we talk about, the government needs to do more than just establish mandates and rules.
I wanted to get his take on the failed historic overlay to see where he would fall on the issue that I've written about before. After parsing this, it reads like he is a supporter of the failed historic district overlay that would've essentially shredded the property rights within the proposed district.

But it must be added that he never comes out and says exactly which side he comes down on. Perhaps the mark of a true politician; I think he's ready for the job.

In other Sean Poccia news, he became the third person running for office to appear on Jim Black's "Land of the Waxhaws," when he was interviewed by Mayor Gardner no less. Two clips here and here.

The fact that the mayor personally interviewed him likely removes any doubt that she's endorsing him, as if the sign at Creative Plus and the Facebook plug weren't enough of a tell already. She's practically showing us her hand. I could continue on with these poker-related analogies but trust me, they'll only get worse.

UPDATE 10/28: The mayor is one who always has problems commenting on this blog so she emailed the following comment:
Every candidate running for office in Waxhaw has been invited to appear on the Land of the Waxhaws internet tv program. You may have seen the spot with Martin Lane from a week or so ago and Mr. Poccia agreed to be interviewed. Our new intern, Jeff Hodge, has contacted the other candidates and extended the offer to them as well. At this point, I believe Mike Stewart is the only other candidate to express an interest in doing so. The offer was made to all but it is their choice.

As for the question of whether I support Sean Poccia for Waxhaw Commissioner, the answer is “Yes, without reservation!”
I've got some further clarifications on Land of the Waxhaws and candidate appearances that I hope to get up later today. Keep your fingers crossed.

4 comments:

Ruth said...

Hello again,
I tried to comment on this before, but it apparently did not go through. I must have clicked something wrong, so I'll try again. Quote from your blog:

" As I recently stated in a Historical committee meeting, there are opportunities to continue creating excitement about the significance of historical preservation. One such idea that I have seen work brilliantly in other communities is establishing an annual (or bi-annual) historical preservation day whereas we create a city sponsored event and bring in experts from around our region who specialize in historical preservation. These types of events allow residents to learn about the techniques, products, services and participate in workshops etc. that will allow a home owner or historical building owner to learn of resources and techniques about preservation. It's been said that knowledge is power and if we really want to become a city where preservation isn't just something we talk about, the government needs to do more than just establish mandates and rules.

I wanted to get his take on the failed historic overlay to see where he would fall on the issue that I've written about before. After parsing this, it reads like he is a supporter of the failed historic district overlay that would've essentially shredded the property rights within the proposed district."

So, is it your opinion that we who WANT to learn about techniques for preserving historical homes and would like to celebrate Waxhaw's history do NOT have the right to do this because of the local, unwritten "property rights" law? Are you against all education or just that pertaining to history?

Thanks,
Ruth Mather

klf said...

Ruth,

Commenting on posts at this blog is a mess, although it doesn't seem to affect everyone. I recommend to anyone who wants to comment to copy their comment before submitting it in case it fails. Google is apparently working on the problem, but not fast enough.

To answer your first question, absolutely not! Re-reading my post, I'm not even sure what I wrote that suggests as much. If anyone wants to learn about preserving their historic properties or just learn about it in general, that's fantastic. But if learning about historic preservation is all they're interested in doing, there would've been no need for the historic overlay that dictates what property owners can and cannot do with their property. As for the "unwritten" property rights laws, most would argue they're written down in the US Bill of Rights.

As for your second question, I vehemently oppose education of all kinds for all people. Who doesn't? An answer as serious as the false dilemma presented by your second question.

Once again, if education about history is the only issue here, then there would be no need for a council of unaccountable bureaucrats to decide what colors you can and cannot paint the porch on your house or how repairs are made. My only issue with the historical preservation in Waxhaw was that it was trying to impose it on a district of people via government fiat.

Private preservation = Excellent
Preservation via fiat that restricts your ability to maintain your property as you see fit = Not so good

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Ruth said...

KLF
A comment or two on your recent post re candidate Poccia. I think he does support the idea of a historic district.
My second comment concerns your statement that the historic district would have "essentially shredded property rights." There is no evidence that supports that statement. Your statement inflames rather than informs. For example, the city of Salisbury has 10 historic districts that include some 3,800 properties. Last year their historic commission had 161 applications to make changes or improvements. Out of the 161 applications only 2 were denied. A 99 per cent approval would not be considered a "shredding" of property rights.
Dick Mather

Ruth said...

To comment on your first point, the historic overlay issue has been voted down. It is no longer an issue. It will not happen. Therefore, education IS the only issue, and the only issue that Mr. Poccia alluded to. Stop being a snot.

As to your next comment, city building codes restrict your ability to maintain your property as you see fit.

Your last point is correct. I am clear on how you feel.