 here We're working on this demolition delay Obviously, there's still a lot of I Feel work to be done. I think we have a couple challenges to discuss and you know one of one of those challenges is how do we create a balance? Provides some of the needs for Reservation but also What's historic what's nostalgic some of the meeting I think we've got a challenge back in 2006 We had at that period So now we're faced Changes where we have Faced But at the same time some of it What is the significance of the building How does that play is it the first Is it a master architect Oh So how do we I I think we have to go down that path, a few different paths. We have to come up with some type of a view that is in short, sweet to the point. So that the home or neighborhood, neighbor, whoever, has the ability to understand what's happening with the effect of it. That's on both sides of it. And then as for this preservation and demolition in a way, I think as we go through this, I think we really need to understand what our criteria is. Because I've heard a lot. We're adding corridors and I read some of the information on it that one of the things I struggled with is that these aren't the first of these times. They aren't the last. So we're putting things under against people's will and I've spoken to a lot of others, a lot of these properties and some of them they want designation based on their ability to be in the natural and to see some significance to it and then there are others who don't. So maybe somebody else wants to take that challenge. I do believe that the way it's still written today, that it is a struggle for a lot of people to achieve the costs and the way it is. And I know that this seems to be somewhat of a standard, but I do think that if you look at the research and what happened in a lot of these situations, we've created a larger gap. The article that you forward us helped me kind of look at things in a little different perspective as well at that and looking into the research and several articles on urbanism talk about what happens. We've created spaces to be very equal, but now it's getting to a point where the costs of this have made it where we're driving other costs and we're reaching density in places and that it's become unfortunately the first of the world and the first of the world to achieve. So what I'd like to do today, if it's good, is have any good through some of the changes that she's made. I think one of the struggles we're going to have is still, and I'd like, I know that you're looking at a quicker response to try to get people to find that understanding of what is all. Mr. Chairman, let me state that I have looked at this thing for the last few months on the demolition delay, and it is confusing. We have the 15 districts, we have the five conservation areas, and we have a whole criteria that I don't think people understand. We have citizens that can understand whether they're in it or out it. This particular ordinance we're looking at now finds itself to the corridors. What I want to suggest is that we simplify this and put the whole city of Columbia in a potential demolition delay. And the way that would work is that we would use the criteria that the staff has come up with but where it says contributes to a historic district which is a subjective criteria that we would actually come up with a list, a named list of the buildings that are eligible for demolition delay. And that that list would be developed by staff and by input from the historic Columbia, by the neighborhoods, that that list would be then presented to the Planning Commission. And you could do that on a monthly basis or a bi-monthly basis as you have those meetings. The owners of the property that are suggested for inclusion on a demolition delay would know up front that that piece of property is eligible for a demolition delay after the Planning Commission gets it, the city council would have it. So we'd have two reviews outside of staff and I would leave the criteria that the staff is using to decide on whether these properties warrant a demolition delay up to the staff. It is a subjective bunch of criteria but we have trained staff that know how to look at these things and come up with answers to the questions about why this particular piece of property should be subject to a demolition delay and its significance to the city of Columbia's history. I think that when you come in to get your demolition permit, we ought to be able to have on our tax map GIS names. Let's say you're looking at 4103 McGregor Circle but that historic person that lived there and all of a sudden you come in for a demolition permit. That tax map number should say whether or not that particular piece of property is subject to delay and if it is then it goes into something like the criteria we have here. By giving the staff the ability to create this list and working with historic Columbia everybody would know. You wouldn't have to worry about whether you were in a conservation district, whether you were in a historic district, whether it was a national piece of property. With the capabilities we have in computers there should be no need for a long delay if you are not one of the pieces of property that should be subject. I would suggest that we go back and redo this thing making it apply to the city of Columbia and create a list that could be computerized so when anybody comes in for a demolition permit they would know up front whether they're going to have to have a more thorough review or whether they would be given a permit to go ahead and do the demolition. Comments now? I don't know that I would agree with that. I think Councilman is correct we should have two different demolition review period for commercial properties and residential just because residential is almost a different characteristic in everything. Whether it's the years the houses were built or the neighborhood were developed, the number of sales of houses sold and bought, it's a lot more than residential and commercial. And it's hard to follow now you're mixing everything up together. I think it is important to separate the commercial properties and commercial corridors in the neighborhoods and make the neighborhood a little easier characteristic or criteria so that everybody can follow. In Shandon it's 1,800 homes. You're not going to get 1,800 people to come and participate in that. I think it's important that we make that simple process for the neighborhoods and a different process for the commercial corridor so everybody can follow and easier steps to follow. As in for property list, there are some things in here and I didn't think there's that many properties that listed on the list that the staff has developed. When Sherman came and burned most of the downtown Columbia and some of the stuff we want to save whatever left over as much as possible, especially when it comes to the business corridor. So it's important that we define the criteria as Councilman recommended has mentioned to make it more specific but it's also important that we reach out to these property owners and let them know that their property is on the list and even give them a period of time that they can appeal that decision from the staff or not, but at least give them the common sense or the knowledge of saying 1401 is on the demolition review status or whatever you want to call it and give them the option or the opportunity to say we want to be on that list or not be on that list. At least everybody knows whether we granted them that wish or not. That's a different character, different discussion, but I think they need to be aware of that. Well, I was about to ask that. I mean, I wouldn't ask Howard some questions because basically, I mean, it sounds like y'all might be saying the same thing. We are. So, but But he wants to he wants to do a whole city and well, well, and I know that's what he said, but the way he explained it, it really is like there are a list of properties. It's not confusing people as in whether you're in a district or not a district. It's just it's about the individuality of the property. And so if you come in for demolition permit, you know, if it's on this list or criteria, it triggers that elevated review and then it'll go through a process. What I like about what Howard said is, and if we can do this, I like that it makes it more of a process of staff planning commission us like the other things and take out that whole DRC and some objective, not to say we're not objective sometimes as well. But I mean, I think that gives people a process that people are used to and somewhat comfortable with. I guess the question would be really honing in on what criteria triggers the review and making sure that that's as tight as it can be. I think that the only thing is if you get to the point where you have the planning commission, City Council can then overrule it, but you still might get into some subjectivity. And biggest thing I think the concerns that I've heard from most folks who are against this is time. Right now, even now, you know, you go through that process, staff planning commission, City Council, you know, that could be three months. But that would be done ahead of time. That would be done in the present time so that when you get ready to tear down 41 on 3 McGregor Drive, you would know that that has already been designated as something that's going to get a review. So you're saying we do that process. What you're saying is that you can tell me if I'm wrong, you can pile a list now. You run it through the process. And at the end of that process, you would accept that list. Or individual. Right. And then it's all designated so you know ahead of time. And the list can change. Which brings in, and I think we're, I think what Howard's saying is that gives everybody the ability to put in it. Because one of the questions that comes down to this is significant depends on your individual perspective. Amy may believe this building is significant because the mortar had a special design for whatever. I may not agree with that. And so having the balance. And I think the one thing that, you know, the column of list, I think we need to make sure that there's more public input along the process. But I think, you know, trying to start off in, you know, day one of what's eligible for the National Registry is number one. And then going down, I think we've got to decide what is significant. And reading into it is going, well, you know, several of these properties, and I went and looked at them. And they're on this two. There's 265 of them in this list. And so, well, they were such and such had the ability to stay here at the time. But it's not the first example. It's not the best example. And it's things, so where does the criteria stop? Right now it is blanking. And, you know, I still, I've heard from most of the folks on the buying street who are adamant that they don't want to be forced into a process. They don't want to choose individual properties. I think there's a couple of buildings that are looked at it. They want to take advantage of the daily bill or whatever. That's their decision. But I think we've got to be real careful about swapping other areas into this. But if you set up a process allowing the subjective criteria to be there, notify the landowner or the property owner that your property is being suggested for being marked as eligible for demolition delay, then they would have that whole time right now before they want to think about tearing the building down to say, yes, I want it in or no, I don't want it in and give the reasons pro or con. What's the mechanism for those? Because when you do that, you're creating a complete blanket based on timelines and everything else. And we need to understand the timeline. What effect does that have? Because you've had neighborhoods who have voted no to some of these. You've had neighborhoods who have voted yes. My thing would not take the neighborhoods out of it. It would make the whole city subject to this based on a list that we would develop with the neighborhoods, with the historic. So we don't list all the overlays? The overlays would not matter as far as demolition delay. It would do away with the overlays. It would do away with the historic districts. If you're looking for demolition, you would know upfront this particular property has been marked as something that if you want to demolish it, then you're going to get into the demolition delay ordinance, which would require some period of time, maybe 180, maybe 120 days to look at that particular piece of property. As it is at this state. So just to make sure I put you on the phone, you're saying that we go through and we have here. Because then at that point, you don't have a city-wide spot. Because after that process, you just have those identified areas. You no longer have. You would have properties identified anywhere in the city if you wanted. That's what I think. I think you're saying when you say split the city-wide, it really is not. It will be individual to the property. We're looking right now city-wide to take out whether or not it's in this district or that district. But once you go through that process, it'll be specific to the property. That's right. Amy? Um, I got stuck on that this would get away, go away, make all the historic districts kind of go away. No, no, they would not go away. Just as far as the demolition. For the record, that is what you said. Well, it's a little confusing. Everything else after that. It takes away the confusion. In perfect example, I got three calls yesterday from folks who were focusing in on the community character preservation. And they were, you know, talking about, you know, people demolishing homes. And I was explaining that, you know, you got to come back out. This is on commercial course, but people are still confused as to what's in front of us right now. Eliminate that confusion. Yeah. So I think Howard is saying eliminate that confusion because whether you, you know, live in Shannon that's protected. Or you live in now. Kilburn. Yeah, that's not protected. But if there is a significant structure in that area, then it still could potentially be on this list. As to whether or not they're in a district or not. One thing to sweeten the pot, the, when you come in to get your demolition permit and you pay a fee to get that permit, that fee ought to be put in a pot of money that would be used for the, for the staff and historic Columbia to keep identifying these properties and putting them into the process of review. Well, we might raise the permit fees. Howard, let me ask you that. So say we go through that process and this list is we ultimately end up with a list of 125 properties, whatever it is. And then there are these other properties that eventually may come on the list. What are you envisioning that process being? Well, I would say that it's nominated by somebody. I think the staff, historic Columbia, individual neighborhoods, an individual person may say I would like my house protected. And then the staff would see if that, if they met the criteria, which could be subjective and bring it to the planning commission with either a staff recommendation of yes or no. Staff's never going to turn that down. Come on. Well, yeah. And then then once the staff and the planning commission agrees to a list, then it goes to city council and city council. So you have review all the way through. So you're talking about doing it on an individual basis, individual piece of property basis. See how reasonable that is. Well, I mean, at the end of the day, all of this, there's a role and a reason for it. It all depends on what the criteria criteria right now. It's so broad brush that you really can pick anything we could make yesterday's historic because the bathtub has been out there for 40 years. But if you had a process. I mean, my point is that we have to be a lot more specific. And I mean things like, you know, you sit there and you talk about this in an outstanding example. Well, how did that example affect the rest of Columbia? It can't just, well, we decide that this is an example. The veterans building up here on the corner for example. Nothing more. Is that the best or the first or the only example left of this type of architecture in Columbia? And how does the long term affect? Because the one thing we still have not talked about in all of this discussion is not only really digging into the criteria, but the financial effect that it puts on the working person. Because it's great to sit up on the hill and neighborhoods and point to people, we don't want you to do this as we build a new McMansion in our little lot, with special exceptions, but I don't want you to do that because there's a fine line here that we've crossed these historic neighborhoods where we don't do what I do, do what I tell you to do. This has become, there's a big line here that concerns me and I've heard it from a lot of people from a financial standpoint, is we got the have nots first thing, the have nots, the have's. And I don't want that to be there and we got to be careful. And it's proven in other cities that it's happened because it creates density problems and over historic preservation. It creates financial burdens. And so I think the one thing that we need to do is if this is the path that we're going down with what you're suggesting, then we really need to focus on what the criteria is not only for being eligible, but to what the criteria is that we're putting on that land of. Because, you know, I've heard a lot from folks, you know, I don't know how much we've heard about the Women's Club, but the reality is, is everybody knew what was eventually going to happen with the Women's Club for 10 years, but nobody stepped up to do it. Everything that we've done in preservation at this point has been a lot of reactive instead of proactive. And I think there is a way to be proactive. I think there's a way to vary cognizance of the buildings that have significant historic. But, you know, when I read, well, the work of an architect of local or natural importance, what does that mean? How does that get into the detail and how does that affect each person? And who's all the deciding? As long as we have a balanced process that allows the property owner and other interest parties to have equal say, but if it's just based on this criteria, well, no, we're not. It's a one-sided argument. My argument, Mr. Chairman, would be that if we have a process, like I am suggesting, where we, in present day, start reviewing these properties, that we could be more subjective rather than less subjective because it's going to go through a process. So I'm okay with these criteria that the staff has listed because it's not going to be just the staff that makes that decision. It's going to be the staff making the recommendation, then they would have to sell that to the Planning Commission, then they would have to sell that to the Council. And in the first instance, they would have to notify the property owner and the property owner. So what happens between the process then? Because this is where the line gets a little fuzzy and we're going to have to discuss it. So if we go, what happens to that property? We start that process and it's in the short process. Let's be realistic what we're talking about. So does the property owner seem not allowed to do anything with this property? Well, I think it would be a very rare instance that the property owner would have in mind as this process is starting. Well, I'm going to demolish this piece of property. Oh, I probably can name 15 pieces right now where people would do that because of the fear of the unknown. Well, there may be a corridor right not far from here where folks are debating that. And the reason some, let's be realistic with the cards on the table. The reason some of these corridors are being added to it is because we're trying to inhibit somebody from doing what they want to do based on a broad based criteria. That's why I don't think this criteria is, and even through the process is defined well enough. It's too broad based to be subjective. I think we can be broad based because I think there may be a period of time during a transition where people might be inclined to go out and carry down something before the process includes them. I think we will have to think through how that process would work. Maybe a letter of notification certified letter to the property owner that your property is going to be looked at. So are you preventing that person from altering, destroying, or doing anything for the next 120 days? Well, those are the questions you have to answer. During the transition period over to the new model of an individual piece of property, I would be willing to put some restrictions on it so that we would not have a mass bulldozer exercising the city of Columbia on properties that may be historic. But I think we can think through that detail. I don't think it would be a problem in the long run because you would have a process in place that would have already identified most of the properties and it would be a continuing process. I think that the landowner, even if 4103 McGregor was on the list and the next landowner wanted it off the list, I think they would be able to go through the process to see if the staff would recommend that it come off the list. Maybe I, as the present landowner, want to have it on the list so I can qualify for the bail-a-bill and tax credits, but the next landowner might not want that. So, as you said that earlier, I guess the question is, this list that we're contemplating isn't the only determining factor as to whether or not somebody would qualify for the bail-a-bill. No, not bail-a-bill. I guess, going to that point, as the current owner, if you want to preserve the house, you're going to preserve the house, you're not going to demolish it. Why would a current owner want to place it on the list to prohibit somebody in the future from demolishing it? That would be the tension we would have between the landowner and the city's need to be able to preserve some historic properties. And I think that the council and the planning commission would look at the real significance of that particular piece of property. If there is, if it does meet somebody's criteria, even though they're subjective in getting on the list, if they've been through, if they're suggested as being included on this list and go through that process, I think you can pretty well be assured that the staff, the planning commission and the city council are going to look to make sure that this is a significant piece of property that needs to be protected. Complete agreement. No. I promise you that's not the case. I think the councilman's recommendation is correct. You've got to go over these criteria to define the list. Look, I think we all know that there's, you know, I have to say I was a little shocked at 265 properties in a small area. I haven't seen that list. Where do y'all get that list? Right here. An email. You know, when you start looking at that, that's a significant amount of properties in a small area. I think you're right. Right, so you're talking about over 10%. Although I was. One area. You make it a significant amount. Oh, right. Well, in these multiple areas, yeah. But I will say that there have only been about six demolitions. We looked at the demolitions that have taken place over the last five years in these areas using the scenery criteria that we were developing. And then we have six that would have been reviewed. So with this very narrow criteria. Six would have been reviewed. And did you take that analysis for that out of those six? How many would have been denied? Well, we would have to have the study. I don't have the structure that we would have seen. It's like the Asian community behind the street. I had to go inside. We would have to have the study. I was going to tell you I was there. I used to pay my insurance there 25 years, 30, 40 years ago. I was scared to walk in. Okay, so it's 40 years ago. It felt like it. I've been paying it for so long. 30 years ago, yeah. So can I clarify what you're suggesting? Sure. To make sure we're all aware of the processes that it would be. In essence, you'd be applying somewhat of a demolition delay overlay. Over the whole city. Well, well to properties that would be come through. Planning commission and city council. And at that point in time, it would be designated as demolition delay. Not the whole city. I mean, the whole city would be for eligible properties, but only those that came through the process of being designated almost as if being designated a landmark. However, only designating them to demolition delay. Right. And then they have that designation. And then in the future, if they were to request demolition, it would go through our process. It would go through part of this process. And I agree with Mr. I recommend on that part, I think we need to change what the responsibility of the landowner is versus the responsibility of the city in determining the structural integrity of the building and all that sort of stuff. I don't think we ought to ask the landowner to hire an engineer or historical significance. I think that's our responsibility. If we want to save that building, we need to prove it to the landowner that there is an alternative other than demolition. They're going back just briefly then. So that initial assessment of trying to identify those properties. How do you envision that occurring? Because that's a lot of property to look at. Well, I think we already have lists available of properties that probably do qualify. And I think we've worked with Historic Columbia and the neighborhoods. I think the neighborhoods could probably do a pretty good job of identifying the significant buildings in their individual neighborhoods. And then they would go through a review. Do they meet any of these criteria? Although some of these criteria are subjective, by time it goes through the landowner, the staff, the planning commission and the city council, that subjectivity would have great scrutiny to it. So I think we can be more subjective than less subjective if it's going to go through a review process that I would envision. And it would be in batches if that's what you were saying. It would be continuous. It would be a fluid list, added to and subtracted as the building structure. Well, that brings up a question. So if you identify the... So what happens if a property owner says, you know, I mean, I absolutely do not agree with your perspective. Based on the historical, that's your opinion. Amy says this building is based on the masonry or whatever. Well, I disagree, because it's been painted 16 times in the last 50 years. Or, like a scenario, somebody brought my attention yesterday, which I never really thought of. They said, well, this building we know is on a list. And it's being... I think the criteria of being used was like he belonging to a group of buildings, which is a good example. But the historical, if you look at the building format of when it was created, it was created much later than the buildings that it's being grouped in. And so the question that comes is, well, it's an example, but it's not a real example. It's a fake. I think it's a review process. Well, I mean, but you say that, Howard, it's real easy to say because the criteria is so loose when you're putting multiple perspectives, I think. That's why I think that you've got to have the criteria very defined so that it doesn't become... Because what we say is historic could be nostalgic. Historic is something but really nostalgic. Let's use another example. The two houses on Forest Drive by Glenwood that are what you call that architecture. International stuff. International stuff. Those two houses are unique. I don't know if they're on any kind of protected list now, but let's say that... Historic, so that's a whole different, that's not a good example. Okay, how about the house on Divine Street that's got the big round window that used to have a piano sitting in it? Oh, you're talking about Kevin Fisher's house. Kevin Fisher's house, that's a unique property. It's not historic. It could be unique. In your opinion. My point is that people would say the Polkadot house that you need. You don't put the Polkadot house on there. There are examples, and I might have put a bad one there for Kevin Fisher's house, but there are examples of properties that are unique that the property owner might not particularly want that, but for the good of the city, if they're raised to a certain level, it might be for the good of the city that we put them on this list of reviews for demolition. Here's the great thing about this discussion. We all agree on the preservation we want all to do. We just have not been able to... And what is? I mean, I probably think that all of us would agree that everything that's eligible for a national review without a doubt, a 100% supported moving forward. Where we get issues, when we get down to C, D, E, and F, that don't talk about master and how it can treat either. I mean, this may not be a great example, but I think about things like artists like Jasper John. South Carolina native, you want to protect everything you've created, because he had such national importance. But just because it was a local architect doesn't mean that that project is significant. It may have not played. I guess that's what I want to try to understand how you get down in that detail. All right, so this guy, he did, and it affected the long-term history of Columbia based on this. But if you went through this process, you would have staff review? You would have the peer review of the neighborhood first? You can't have a peer review. Well, this is the criteria. This is subjective. This is subjective. But it's not detailed. And it is typical of historic reviews. I mean, these are... Right, and that's why... Yeah. Look at the controversy in D.C. and all these other cities where it's become... They get 50 districts and this and that. And it's all in it, and it's becoming more and more court cases where it's proving that people are doing this not for historic reservation, but the downgrade zone. I mean, you have to balance it. Using, you know, this belonging of root buildings is a good example. So what happens if you're subjecting somebody else to that? So how does... I guess for me... I think the public debate on individual piece of property that may meet some of these criteria would come up with the right answer. It would have so many eyeballs on it, on the decision that you could bring up all of those objections but to try to be specific in the criteria that you get to look at a piece of property in the first place I think is going in the wrong direction. But it isn't. How would that... I'm not sure you can say that because you need to have a criteria that even gets you on the list. You can't just subjectively say 4203 Woodley Road built in 1952 by Walter Chandler. It's an example of whatever craftsman you want to say or whatever, but potentially somebody who lives in that house also had significance. It involved locally those factors create because based on this criteria it makes that... But that would... The subjective criteria would get the house, the piece of property up for debate. And through the debate process you could say, well no, that's not really significant. He was just a local architect that graduated from Clemson. You're kicking the school aside. The public debate would decide whether that was a significant piece of property or not. If you're going to have the neighborhood, the staff, the planning commission and the city council look at these lists and if there's any objection to a particular piece of property we're going to hear about it. And then we can say you can use all your arguments. It's not significant. It doesn't have the criteria. What would be the... Let's say a piece of property goes to... What do you envision? Do you go to circuit court if you disagree with county? If your property gets pushed so you go to circuit court? Yeah, it's similar to what you do with landmarks now. It's up to the city council to find out the designation in the end. And if they disagree with it they will disagree. Would they be able to appeal until they're hurt by demolition? Yeah, that's what I was about to say. I mean we're talking a lot about the front end of the process. But really any harm or potential harm doesn't kick in until someone is... The back end. Yeah, to be able to do something. So just because it's on the list, if no one ever comes to get a demolition permit for the property then it doesn't matter. What happens is when someone comes for the demolition permit and then what we're saying is that it doesn't mean that the permit won't be granted. It just means because they're on the list it elevates the review. And then through that review if we go through and that's where our tier is very important but if we go through the review and you find out well, you know, the cost to preserve it that there is no better use for property, et cetera, et cetera. I thought if it doesn't meet that criteria then the demolition permit then can be issued even though the property was on the list. So that goes back to the criteria. We've got to be tight, not just on the criteria to get on the list but the factors that are looked at whether or not it triggers the actual denial of the permit. And I would suggest that it would be less stringent on the criteria to get you on the list and more stringent on the criteria that delays you from getting the permit. Stomps you from getting the permit. No, I thought we'd say that y'all are part of the public. You can, as part of the public, you can... That's what we saw. Yeah. Supermajority. No, he's speaking. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we hold that and look at that second part that I think you and I agree on and some of the criteria that's required of the landowner when the delay is granted. So I think probably the best process would be is to create the alternative in writing really specifically and split them side by side to go through them that way and then bring something forward the challenge that we have and know that there are folks in the community that we think everybody's against everything, which is not the challenge. But you know, when you go up, I think we want to have something very unique that preserves history for the same time and allows people to have the rights. This may be the process to do that where we kind of flush everything out, make it less subjective, I think it's still very important here. I'd love to one day be sitting next to a building that's been there for hundreds of years and then next to it's a nice modern building like you've seen a whole lot of other cities with that balance. Understanding we take a building, let's use a building, for example, right now, maybe in the hundreds, we're taking a building with a balance. How do we make sure that process, how does that affect people in their stores because we think they're having a vested interest? I've seen some very traveling a lot of ways. I've seen some very unique neighborhoods. We've got this really kind of cool, urban, modern house right next to a traditional craftsman house, which is really cool in the neighborhood and how that... I just want to make sure that as we're moving forward, we're not hindering our growth. Cutting our nose off is quite a waste of lack of better time based on criteria. So, you know, probably the best move forward for us to really deepen the discussion, but I think we all have a common goal. I think that we want to see reservations of balancing the ability to grow. We know now we struggle in growth. We are not growing. The hindrances that we're learning more about it, it's that structure of it's this, it's the process. The process, I think, is a big part of this. Better throwing those creams. Well, I wish we had some to throw in. You know, it's pretty sad. We're in the best economy that we've had in a long time. We have challenges that we've got to come overcome. I think the efforts that we are making are the group are important, but at the same time, we can't get lost in the tax credit structure or whatever, but understanding the process is at the end of the day, time is more valuable to all of us. And, you know, we struggle as it is now. So I think if we move forward, we can make sure that it's seamless and it doesn't create this, you know... This is my very interesting call from Mark Hood. I think Mark Hood is a very good example of a person who balances both. He's got Harvard and by a lot of historic buildings, we do it. And then he also does new construction. He's on both sides of it as an investor and owner and a construction guy. And he's like, the way this is written, I would be voted against it. And I probably invested the more historic properties downtown than a lot of people have. I think when you're hearing that, I think we do have to visit the criteria and the structure at the time. But also understand when we make this decision, the burden that we're putting on this side of the table, because there's only so much and so many staff, so we're going to have to address all of those as we move forward. It's not just about the board meetings, it's about staffing and execution and what that's going to entitle. But if we do this, if we implement this process, then there will be a certainty. If you know that you're, if you need a permit and you've already been designated as a property, they'll have to get the review of the demolition permit. You would know that up front now. I think that's it. I think what I heard you say was your intention, I guess. So if a property's already gone through, is it off? Or do people have the ability to keep pushing, trying to push it forward? So let's example. Just like zoning, you know, they come back. Yeah. It's me. So is there a cut off? So I mean for a property owner, I don't, right now I'm not assured that this process stopped because if there's a group of people who are convinced that my building is historic in their perspective, can they keep pushing it forward? I mean once you've been through the process, is the process over? I think it's always open for review because the property will change over time. But that also brings in why criteria is important because if the integrity of the property and everything over a period of time makes it not the example. And that's why I think knowing that it's the first, or it's the last, or it's the best, or it's a master architect are very significant small words that clearly define a path. One of the things that we can do, as you can see now, that might help, when we were going through these criteria. For instance, looking at significant architects. So when their names pop up, we want to look at what they've done. And maybe that building is not the best example of its kind, but at least it's the flag. We can give you some of that information on these criteria if that would make you more comfortable. That's going to be a good idea to understand when you say significant what that significant is so that we understand from how you got to that point. Because once again, significance and historic is all about one's perspective. I mean, you literally could find a reason to make almost anything historic. I mean, look at Howard, he wanted to pick Kevin Fisher's house. I think that's unique. Unique is not historic. It could be. We'll start with the 50-year mark. It goes from there. But I think they're having examples of those and how you got there. I think it would be very helpful to help us look at the criteria because it would be a deeper dive. Yeah, and I can certainly do that. I don't think it's going to be possible for you to do it comprehensively. I think a couple of examples. One of the things I was reading in research was how certain properties play a significant role. That role really was greater because it had an effect all the way into what's cultural. That becomes a real debate. Especially in a culture today where it's all over the place. We've got people who want to erase history. We've got other people who want to parade it. There's no balance. History is what it is. But I guess understanding how we created the balance. Because I did worry about how it affects a very good amount. Which when you get over a bundle. I think that's where maybe your suggestion may play in to help us knock that down. Because one of the things that does happen is that you need to get rid of the purchase and grow in areas. And it does happen because you keep it up to that standard or whatever. So I think that's very interesting. And it may be a way that we don't end up in just blankets. You know, you really have focused it down to a significant property. I don't know how all that plays in with some of the neighborhood. Because if you've got a character. I still think we have to figure out a different way to deal with it. Because Shannon is not a historic neighborhood. They had interim measures. Let's be frank. The reason it was put in is we had a few developers who pushed the envelope. But at the same time, we don't need the character of the building to grow either. Things evolve. They change. And then we go to Shannon and pick out very distinct things. And then we also pick up things that are in the building. Certain people get to build back houses. Other people go in there. So I think crime has created a balance. But I do think that those folks, we have to come up with some kind of short-term delay. Not something that turns into, this is a lot more complicated process. Not for the same things that somebody would change. They want to have a building that's going on fire. And the things just don't get pulled out of that system. They're going to create a business in these districts. And the changes that I don't think we can put in our ways when we want to. They have the highest, I believe. Historic doesn't have all the middle. And so there's a process in it. There's things. I think there should be some change. I think there's some things that are subjective in there. But they've voted in a way that we feel like we have to be very careful that we can't just rip things. That there has to be some type of process. It doesn't stop projects. But there ought to be some type of dis-works in their situation. And I think we're going to have to be... Should be separate. The community character in the work of this is playing roles. I think it may actually confuse it more if you were to include properties in CC and DC districts. I mean, historic districts will know what they've got. Demolition is really the medium. So there's actually a higher level of protection in those districts than in them as well. If you were to change that, you don't want to be reducing their protection for a district. So from our perspective, it would be much cleaner out of this outside of the court. You want to look at the staff. I think that would be the best way in between that allows us to communicate with first. Because I think if we can have some stuff side-by-side and really get into it, then I think we can create some dialogue. We can create more public input. I think looking at it and understanding what the criteria is on all sides. What's the under responsibility? What's staff, city responsibility? On the back end. On both sides. Because you got to look at the criteria that also... Because in here, we're requiring these people to make these records. We're requiring them to do this. We're not going to do that. The way it is that people talk about what's a reasonable return. Besides that, reasonable in my eyes might be different than yours, but it's not your money. We've got to remember that we're talking about other people's investment and other people's money. People are at different levels. If you've got a historic structure that has been owned by the family for three years, that's why I'm having some of them under responsibility. I think that's right. If they're the developer, they're up-to-date. And if I'm not mistaken, that's a kind of issue. I think that's a good point. So, yeah, I'm very... That's why you looked at it. It wasn't wrong. At least, I think it wasn't for the real years. It's the reach of the workmen that is doing that. I agree with you. I think the economic burden on folks to generate some of these reports, if you know this is very standard language, is asking a lot. Because we've thought a long time about this, about what we might be asking. Very small property owners to do. But I think Mr. DeVallier's point, that maybe that's something that the city could assume, and these are turning out to be relatively rare instances of demolition, but that might be a helpful thing, if we have some, you know, some of the real estate products who are on stand-by for that kind of information, maybe that's something that the public wants to add, because I agree, it's not... Well, what you think over that, what made us really realize that the criteria was, how you can make this a lot smaller, about how it would be very certain. Yeah. And I think all three of us agree that that section of those ordinances would be rewritten, given the city the responsibility to prove to the property owner that it shouldn't be demolished because of these reasons. And I also think, though, if we do the pre-publication and have that list, then looking at the review process for the permit, it could probably shorten that timeframe because it would have been sort of a problem. I think it would have. One of the sticking points that I see in that is that we can do architectural surveys and we can figure that out. I think relatively quickly, depending on the size of the area and the staff availability and time, you know, architectural, what might mean for you, architectural history that takes the community to figure out on the rest of this. And it took many people a good bit of time to come up with the bare bones that we had right at the beginning because it requires research. So that's something that we're going to have to do to move it out and figure out how that could be sent to it or if it doesn't work. I would suggest that we send this back to the staff and try to come up with an alternative and go to number two on our agenda. Is it confirmed? So for the first part, we will draft something just as a process instead of a staff review as far as determining eligibility would be the process for things to go to plan efficiency. I think you should do a narrative of what you envision. When I say that from a sense, from a staff legal and all the different departments to write up a full audience until we've agreed on all the terms. So maybe y'all could take what's been discussed today and put it into a narrative that we can use as comparison and tweak all that before y'all run back and forth 16 times back because there's going to be a lot of input both for the public and us and I think that would be well spent putting it into how you envision it based on today's conversation and alternative before we give them the list which is what is this 8 version or 90 version I just think I think that would be much better for staff to provide community with that and we can really get into some discussion but in the meantime I would encourage us to committee to spend some more time thinking of the criteria reaching out to the view of the values together if it's okay also the staff analysis of resources what it would take to implement the decision that y'all have outlined that that basically speaks to how that would work and what it would make it work or maybe what I can do to send out to prior to seeing this just does actually not seem to y'all could have that prior I think it would be great if you could provide an example of we know what A and B is for example the C, D and E and F would be a great pay this is this is how I am doing this and this is how we face it okay because I think that would give us a better understanding of this gentry yes there's been some conversation over the last few months about challenges associated with development in Columbia and that we've worked together on incentives both for affordable housing and the parking that we're going to talk about tonight but as we've been asked to consider a study that would compare Columbia to other cities we wanted to develop a list for y'all's review and input the type of items that would be benchmarked this is really submitted as a draft for conversation purposes to make sure that we frame whatever study correctly I think what would be interesting is we did just a study maybe it's that group out of Asheville one of those that actually just takes our city and breaks it down I mean we've compared ourselves to a lot of different cities and there's so many different factors that play different but there is no exact comparison if you want to look at growth you can go to every city of the southeast right now and see it we'll struggle and I think we've identified one of our biggest challenges here is our tax base unfortunately the comparison that staff did, the Greenville and Charleston dictates it very clearly we got school and debt in Greenville at 190 mills in Columbia it's close to 400 mills the new bond in Richland too is going to put places in Columbia in District 2 up to close to 700 mills that's our challenge we've always thought it was purely the nonprofit piece which is part of it but I think we ought to be looking at our city is what's inhibiting our growth why are we not vertically growing where we already have infrastructure how we match up to ourselves is what I'm saying I mean we've looked at the way our properties are done have we taken advantage of you go to the capital city club and look out the window and you look around and you see a beautiful city but at the same time you also see tons of parking underutilized property in the center as well which would help kind of balance the challenges of being the capital city I think that's something we ought to look at where are our economic efforts going? Christa as the planning we always say we don't take as long but we're seeing more and more people going across the river because it's a lot easier to do the things that we could do internally because when I talk to staff we all have so many great ideas that never bubble up to the top and maybe if we focus on ourselves we would have a different outcome I think it's helpful to have comparisons I like the ones they suggested but I would also suggest a couple in South Carolina Charleston and Greenville right now and two of purely tax-driven and policy-driven but I think that would be a good comparison look at Rockadel you can see it but I think what we did we identified the other day that firm really could take a look at how we can balance that we have challenges which is I don't know how we address it but I think we can't make that call but I think you ought to make the information I'll make the recommendation the council as a whole won't want me to make that recognition to the full council call Sam and we'll have it we have some women yeah we have having it I'll give the information and present it at our next meeting I think if we could engage somebody and move forward that would be helpful especially as we're doing budget I think a lot of this stuff we have already a lot of this information so I think it's really taking a look from the tax base we saw I think would be interesting to what we can see is what is an in-state what are we doing that makes it easier to come out of here which we all know we've heard from everybody on the team that is scrapping as a challenge in-state is good it gives us great data but out-of-state as well because it tells us things that we can do or the challenges other cities even if it is something on the state level that needs to be changed and as we send our folks out to lobby and advocate for certain things we'll have to face it and do it but I mean also the tax structure as well I mean the there are in my conversations with some folks that don't see that amount of property not on tax rolls and you know raise revenue through other things that the state allows them to do and I think that maybe we need to look at it see that's one of the things that we discovered as well and that we looked at that but it still doesn't we have to figure out how do we create that challenge but we go up here and look at that and we try to bring it to balance in the same time not in danger because we wouldn't have all the people have what they're doing now if we didn't have so I think this is this would be great to that point not just that but we've talked about this before but for instance so that wouldn't be or anything that would have helped us change that percentage if we were able to get more properties that were on tax rolls but South Carolina our law limits us whereas North Carolina has more aggressive laws in regards to cities ability to grow so how do we pay here if we take a similar situation in the city of North Carolina and find out how are they able to do that if we have some real life examples on because of the way their taxation laws are the taxation laws it allows them to do things that we can't and as we say what our legislative agenda is and then I'll be saying okay we need to be pushing things on the state level and I think you all probably have to work to do just that way of the discussion of communication with the school district so hopefully maybe this bit of this as well I do think we ought to share the information that we gather so that everybody understands the challenge I think there's a well this is all an hour there but I think that's a little bit of a challenge it's going to be communicating it in a way that's just to understand the bigger picture I think there's a willingness to understand but there's also that in the school district standpoint we're supposed to recognize why what's behind their millage what it is how poverty has impacted the district etc. the programs that they outlined for you all the other night for those of you who are there there's a package that they sent back for you but it was an interesting conversation and I think that the challenges you all are facing with the growth of the development it all played together there's a lot of music and that's the military so I just put that on the table I'm curious to see that and that's why I think this is necessary well I think this would help better tell the story we decided to have a quarterly meeting with the school district and we would host the next one I think that's kind of what we were talking about I think it was a very productive meeting we talked about some serious things and we heard their reasons for some of their why they're out of the norm I won't go into it here but they do have some pretty good arguments of what pushes their high millage so I think we need to listen to them but it was a very productive meeting and we need to do it quarterly I think so and maybe to that point I've got some pieces of that conversation but very similar to the reason I missed the meeting is because I was in Jackson for National League of Cities and our meeting was really a lot very similar it was just about southern cities and the effect of our southern history on growth poverty equalizing other things one of the things we discussed was that if you understand some of the policies that were put in place historically we're still seeing the effects of those policies today and we might have to be a little bit more aggressive at the policies that we enact now trying to rectify some of those things because things are getting more farther apart than bringing things together and so to that point when you think about the school district from my understanding some of it is based on the level of services that they have to put together for the number of Title I schools that they have and some other things and poverty affects that so how do we understand what their challenge is but then are there things that we can do yet because ultimately the tax base is the tax base and the millage is going to help all of us so they got to be more programed but it's still our ability to see people to live in the city so I think it's a bigger conversation that hopefully we can have ongoing conversations especially as both of us are going into our budget well man I think it's just as equally as having a conversation you look at the proposal on the table you know 6% raised based on well if there's that much money without having to raise things why don't we get rebates on taxes for the property there's that much flush cash over there then you got the penny sales tax which I think now we're being asked to pay for greenway and this and that well where is that money going and then we're going to they're going to renegotiate and let those guys get retro raises for two years we need to have some frank conversations because there is close to what 1.6 billion dollars collected in this community if I was a group of tax payers I probably want to know where all that money is because I mean unfortunately we can say we have to be competitive this and that but you know a lot of new stadiums a lot of new buildings a lot of new this and that everywhere being bought and paid for but it's not elevating maybe I don't know but I do think but also I don't want people to feel that our willingness to sit down and talk is going to let us just back on I think we do as a city have to be more aggressive and making sure that because the citizens of Columbia pay more than anybody else in the whole county for everything and we always and we're the ones who are making the investments that they're all leaving the benefit for has not been a two way street and I'm going to tell you which one too is going to have a massive ripple effect on our community on the attractive bigger businesses that we have to locate out in those areas and I'll come here when we're about seven hundred so with that we're adjourned