Amendment debate pits preservationists against developers

Intense debate over an amendment to Bloomington's Growth Policies Plan on Monday left two polarized sides waiting for a vote nearly three hours into the meeting. \nThe split has marked many of the debates concerning the GPP. Developers have argued for a minimum of regulation on their property, while preservationists have argued for public processes to maintain historic structures and neighborhoods.\nCouncilwoman Patricia Cole, who offered the amendment on behalf of the Bloomington Historical Preservation Commission, said the amendment would create a "demolition delay" for historic structures -- a waiting period after a property owner requests to demolish homes surveyed as historic. The vote on the amendment was not available at press time.\n"We wanted this amendment because right now the demolition of any building is treated as 'by right' of the property owner," said Duncan Campbell, from the historical commission. "A demolition delay is asking for some time for the review process to work. Currently, in two or three days, you can demolish a building."\nProponents of the amendment cited in the last two weeks the demolition of two buildings on East Third Street by John Burnham as an example of why such a delay is needed. Burnham said he demolished the buildings after he learned they were going to be designated historic by the Historic Commission.\n"I know I've been the focal point of controversy of late," Burnham said. "But do property owners know what's happening? No. A delay period removes the rights of individuals and gives it to the preservation commission."\nSeveral times the debate was couched in terms of community values versus an individual's right to do whatever he or she desires with a property. \nSupporters described the delay period as a long, slow breath before action is taken. Another image offered was a speed bump on development, something that would not end development or even demolition, but create a public process to sort out which buildings are worth saving.\n"We recognize the importance and fragility of preserving our natural resources. We have to do it for historical resources as well," Bloomington resident Tom Rozsonowski said. "What assurances can the opponents of this bill give us the a situation like Burhnam's won't happen again?"\nThe mayor's office as well as the city's Planning and Legal Departments came out against the amendment.\n"There is a process in place to designate buildings as historic," said James McNamara, a spokesman for the mayor's office. "Yes, buildings on the courthouse square could be demolished, so why isn't the commission talking about square preservation?"\nMost of the citizens at the meeting spoke in favor of the amendment.\n"We spend thousands of dollars to go to Europe to marvel at their history," said one member of the public. "Then we come home and demolish our own."\nThe next GPP meeting will be held at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the City Council Chambers at the Showers Building, 401 Morton St.