 for your public hearing, includes demolition review for community character neighborhoods. So it's actually, if folks go to the weplannedtogether.org, which is where the, I think you're here more than that. Yeah. Which is where the ordinance can be found online. It has a number of proposed revisions and that's one of them. So it's actually called out that demolition review is included in community character neighborhoods. And just for the record, confirm that there has been no changes to the neighborhoods who have the historic overlays that there still is a demolition delay process for it. Yeah, and it's actually just straight demolition review just as it always has been. So there have been no changes to the historic designations, the historic districts, those are all the same. We just want to make sure that everybody understood that there are no changes there. And the request that the community has asked has been, is it being amended and we'll see it in two weeks. So with that, what we'd like to do is, if we could turn it over to Ms. Moore. And I think, I don't know who needs a memorandum. I don't know if you have any extra copies. I've got some. I'd like to go through the memorandum and then leave with some direction of coming back because I think we'd like to get a draft ordinance. And there'll be a couple of things that I think we need to research and add to it that we can bring back for public decision. So option A has already been presented to you. Demolition delay is proposed for geographically specific areas mainly the city center in North Main Street or Bay Street, Divine Street corridors. And then as we understand what Mr. Devault proposed as option B, what we have here is that proposal is to enact demolition delays city-wide, but to individual structures in the day to day process. And so similar to option A, the criteria for determining whether a building should be subject to the demolition over the year would be in the ordinance. So the council feedbacks with what they're basically saying the structure is designated with this demolition delay review. And then if so, if a permit was pulled for demolition, then that structure would come forward to the DRC for the demolition delay review that has already been proposed for y'all. With largely follow the same steps. So in thinking this through, I imagine that if we did go with this phase process, we would probably still have the eligible landmarks that we already have in hand. We would go through with national registered properties that are not in protected areas and we'd be national register eligible properties and then may forward with probably corridors where we already have the research done on those parcels which we've completed for the first phase of talking with y'all about citywide on what might be significant. So all that being said, just let me reiterate and this is in the memo on the first page that when we look at reviewing properties for significance, we look at them for architectural significance which we will get from an architectural resource survey. But then we also look at them for cultural significance to make sure that there's not as we might say hidden history that we don't know about that might be important to the community. That is not covered by any architectural survey. That's something we have to do parcel by parcel. So we look at deeds and newspaper articles. You say that if we do option B, you think that 60 to 80 properties would have to be looked at and no, 60 to 80 properties would have a request for a demolition permit and that 12 or 14 of those properties per year would likely require a higher level of review? That's what we were estimating based on demolition permits pulled citywide and the age of structures citywide that we know are 50 years older or older. How long does it take you to do a cultural? Well, if it's individual on a parcel, that's one reason at the beginning of our process for the workflow chart that we gave y'all before that we had a 10 day review because we would have to have some time to be able to get to the deeds office, potentially look at archival resources, et cetera, et cetera. I had the pleasure of listening to Historic Columbians, the lady on the staff that does these cultural reviews did a workshop a few months back and she showed how she does these cultural reviews. It was very interesting, but it seemed to me that a lot of that material was now readily available online and so it would not take an unusual amount of time to say yes or no on whether it's cultural. I think architectural is much easier. It is. It's a visual thing and you pretty well know the list that we have now probably identifies most of the gyms in Columbia that really do need to be preserved. It's the cultural background of a particular building that might kick them in. And if you think you're gonna have 14 a year, it wouldn't take too long to review those as they came through the window asking for a permit, would you not? Well, I think you're right. Resources are much more accessible now than they used to be, but we were also including that in our current workload. So other things that we're trying to handle in addition to reviewing these. So that's where that came from. So, Ms. Moore, one of the things that we were looking at is when you read this, it makes option B look egregious, but just wondering why couldn't we apply the option B criteria to the same areas that are in option A? I mean, why does it, I mean, I guess, we're looking at that this is put in a citywide, which I think was not, at least I didn't think that was the intent. I think we still have to narrow down some of the criteria. I think it could be, I think option B could be used if we can come up with that criteria that you're looking for and think we have a manageable number of these requests each year. And if I may, option B, so that value is if you were to do a citywide survey. And I think that you had suggested doing this in a phased manner. So that would be not necessarily your costs in year one, but over a period of time just to get that survey done. And my concept is it would be a continuing process that you would keep looking in. There may be number one, you've got people that are gonna get 50 years old every year. I know about that. And so. You're not getting 50 anymore. I would. My kids are. So I think that if we go with something like option B and can come up with a way to do that economically for the city, we'd have a continuing route. And then I think we might also be able to put a, what I would call an escape clause in there that if you had somebody come in and present you for a demolition permit and you had reason to believe that it was something that really needed to be looked at and you didn't have it on the list already, that you could take 30 days and run it through the culture review, run it through the architecture review. That might get a little sticky. I mean, I agree with the, and I appreciate the concept because I certainly think that's something that could happen. Yes. I can see where it would take quite a bit of trying to find the right word for it. Because what I understand that the option B has been offered up to provide some certainty. So to have the escape clause that you're referencing eliminates that certainty and puts us back into this reacting property by property as they come. It depends on how you structure it. Two as well. I mean, I think one thing, one piece that nobody has any argument about is what's eligible for the national register. Or identify, or identify, correct. Not one person in the community has that. So starting with that list, I think some of the other ones we still, the criteria is what creates the uncertainty. But you're not what, when you talk about certainty, it really isn't. It may be certainty in one opinion, but not to everybody else's opinion. And so how do you balance that? And I think digging into that and talking to people like Scott Garvin and other folks who have a true balance, they're the guys on the ground actually doing the work, but also aren't supportive of the way our ordinance is written, proposed ordinance is today. And what's the difference in there? We put a penalty in there as well for people who, the thing, but I had a very interesting proposal somebody put forth that says, well, if you end up holding my property for 180 days, and at the end of the 180 days, let's just say it gets released, I still have another 120 days to go through the process to get permitted, DDRC, every piece of that. So you're really taking my property from me for a year. Not saying it happens in every case, but if it does, and so the question became is, are you willing to give me property tax relief for that period of time because I can't sell my property, I can't do anything with it during this process. So finding the balance on how we address it. So I think as we move forward, coming up with a combination of the two ordinances that are put together, I think makes sense, and it's gonna take some give and take in wheeling. I think adopting the list that we all agree on number one and then figuring out ways to address the others. I've heard a lot from the corridor folks who are not interested in being swept into something. And there's several individual landowners in those places who do, which they have the ability to opt in at any point. So do we stick with what we already have and then work with individuals and then work through a process that maybe we can draw in other people? I know that the majority of the Divine Street folks are adamantly against. They feel strongly and I hear it all the time because they've had a vote, they don't wanna be dragged in. Now there's two or three properties I think folks wanna bring in. I think the Bohemian building is one of them that comes to mind where the owners wanna take advantage of it, which they have every right to. But it's the. You said the Divine Street, what was the name of it? The Bohemian. The building. You said there was a group that was adamantly holding. The Divine Street, the property owners, they have been through this exercise previously. So I think for us is how do we pick through the two proposals here that comes up something that creates balance? Because when you go back and read the National Historic Registry process, it really doesn't prohibit demolition, it doesn't prohibit this. And we're adding on all of these things, but we're not putting any encouragement on the other side either. It's this one way. And I think to create a balance that brings everybody to the table, let's take the first step. I think the list that compiled here, there's probably 50% of that list is eligible. Out of the two 65s. The other ones are based on a loose criteria, could be nostalgic. When we talk about cultural, that's the other thing everybody really struggles with. And an example there that I thought would be interesting is how would we address, if we did a historic, if we went through this, would yesterday's be historic based on this criteria? And would that, so does the bathtub and the guy in the bathtub protect it? I would say what we did with the criteria, what I would say is when we narrowed the criteria, what we basically did was we took the criteria and tried to apply it to buildings that would meet our landmark criteria. And so those are folks who are significantly contributing to local history. And so I think when you're looking at that, we looked at lists of folks who, let's just say along Divine Street, and we were researching those who had businesses, or who had families who are prominent in Columbia, but may have been extended family members. And city staff basically said no. What we need are people who have really significantly contributed, we're talking about previous mayors or people with enormous influence in terms of cultural events that have happened in the community. So while we acknowledge that we all bring contributions to the community, we're looking at people who've had a real impact, and not just through family association, but through actions and events that still make history today. So we were trying to address that because I understand that's a concern. So we were trying to narrow that even further down. So based on the current criteria, does the bathtub and the guy become a historian? No. Okay. No. Which is a good question because it got brought up. The other part is when we look into this, and I think understanding that cultural, defining it, for me it's very important that it's very defined so that there's not this loose interpretation, and wording I think makes a big difference in that. And so when I look at number D, letter D in here, it says somewhat rare within Columbia, that to me is very loose term because is it the first of that kind? Is it the most significant of that kind? Mm-hmm. You know, how does that represent as a community? Just because it's somewhat rare doesn't mean that it is rare, and it is the most significant. And so I think defining those terms because the way this is the thing out, you could argue about every building as some cultural or historic significance in a community through somebody's eyes. I think that through Historic Columbia, there might be a process, so say you have a structure, that the structure itself is not significant architecture, you know, maybe even a lot had happened there, but the relevance of it, for instance, someone who, you know, say 50 years from now, someone who lived there, founded, researched on a drug that, you know, cured cancer, for instance. So the question becomes, do we make that structure itself significant, or is there another problem? When I was talking to somebody, there's a lot of concern about losing our history and that there's no way to moralize these different contributions. So I'm just kind of wondering, is there a process through Historic Columbia that the structure itself is not significant, but it has a relationship to someone who has some sort of significance? Is there some other mechanism either through Historic Columbia, the city of women, you know, something that we have within the community that still moralizes that? So I was kind of wondering when I thought, when I heard the person's concerns, that I thought through this, you have, are we pushing people to tie the history to structure, even when it's not necessarily tied to the structure, or can we make sure that there are certain other things in place through our collaborations with other entities to make sure that somebody can still be recognized through another historic destination, recognition, memorial marker or something that doesn't keep progress from moving forward from a structure being able to be demolished and growth of the city. So I just throw that out there. I don't necessarily have an answer, but I think we need to think through that because this is about the structures itself and what the person and I were talking about is, if we don't, we don't want to get to the point where nothing can be demolished, especially if the structure itself is not significant. Right. And that's basically the definition of cultural significance, right? It's like, if that's all the structure has is cultural significance, not architectural significance. For instance, in Waverley, there is a historic marker which is a mechanism that we frequently use to address those exact issues. And they will go up where there are no longer structures there, but like Judge Perry's house used to be standing in Waverley where he lived and now there's just a marker there. So there's no visual representation anymore of this man's past and how he grew up in the community in which he grew up and which formed him. And that's one reason why we try so hard to hang on to some of those structures so we understand the context of these people's lives and where they came from and then eventually what they contributed. So I hear you and I think sometimes, yes, that's the only thing, but there may be other mechanisms too just to answer that question where you no longer have buildings. We've been talking a lot about the importance of storytelling and recording people's stories and the importance of recording histories and neighborhoods. I know Historic Columbia has done some really wonderful work with that in different neighborhoods. So we do have some of that and some of that can probably be refined to people too to get more information. But for the general public to be walking along the sidewalk and trying to understand what happened there and who came from there, it's one reason we feel like structures are so important is to continue to tell that broader story and context. Operating in the 19th, the cultural significance around that is huge and it's just coming to light now around all the stories that are so significant. So it's not on any list, but it needs to be, those really good things that are gonna come up and if you don't have these areas broadly that are protected that you have a chance to go in and review, you're gonna lose some of that. Well, and that's kind of the flip side of that because I have that same conversation around Green Book and about now people are noting that these were significant structures and places and we don't even know where they all are, right? And so you may not know until next five or 10 years. So there's just, it seems like there just has to be a balance. I agree. I think timing is a huge part of that. We've got to reduce that because you literally are locking someone down in an extremely extended period of time. I think the offtake to that is do we create a balance that if it does come out, do we provide people with relief because we're basically locking them down for that process? Right, and one of the things that is an offshoot of narrowing the criteria so that these are basically landmarkable buildings is we can offer the Bailey Bell, which is tax abatement. And if they're looking for pre-abilitation, it locks it down. So I know that doesn't answer entirely what you're after. I just, I think we've got some work to do and I think language is gonna be the key in having key examples. I do feel like that we can try to move forward on something sooner than later if we encompass part of what we know is eligible now and then start picking off other pieces because it's gonna take time. I think we've got to decide what goes in it and what doesn't. And I think some of the corridors, we need to have a real frank discussion about because I think we're going against people's wishes. If you took Chairman's concept of taking option B and applying it to the corridors instead of city-wide, wouldn't that work as a first step to give us time to start building our inventory of the list that would have both architectural and cultural significance on a list so people would know. And then they go through the process of y'all identifying them, taking them to planning commission and taking them to city council for approval. So the landowner would have the opportunity then to say, well, I don't want my person and then somebody, somebody planning commission city council would have the authority to say, well, you might not want it on there but they have proven to us that it is significant and vice versa, there may be occasions where either the planning commission or the city council will say, well, you've not proven to us, to our satisfaction that this is culturally significant. Would there be a middle ground there? Y'all would option A, but we use option B to go in. Certainly, we've done a lot of research already for option A in some of our corridors and we're actually pursuing a very formal survey of city center so that we would have more extended information on that. Of course, again, not cultural but the architectural survey. So. But cultural I think will be very important to understand that criteria and what significant makes that culturally viable. And it's part of the struggle with the criteria in here is I don't think it's narrowed down and for me it's very important to have that distinction very clearly what the guidelines are. I think that's the only fair process because there's way too much gray and not everything. Look, there's arguments on both. The reason that this is a real push today is because of the Women's Club. Right. I mean, let's just be honest in reality of that. Well, to me, I struggle with a lot of that too because everybody's known about the Women's Club for a long, long time. That building has been just deteriorating and so at some point other people have to step up to the plate and address those issues. It can't always be just legislation that tries to stop everything. The community and other people who Women's Club for some people is nostalgic for other people that's historic. How do we define that line? I guess it's really what it comes down to. One thing I think the chairman looking for is not having so much subjectivity in the criteria. From my point of view, if you have, you're gonna have to have some subjectivity but if you have a review process where it goes through the staff, to the planning commission, to the city council, there's plenty of time to wash that subjectivity with facts, come up with a reasonable determination on that piece of the moment. I think cultural history is something that evolves over time. There are things right now, as you said. The Green Book would be a good example. Exactly, you know. And so those are things that we are constantly looking at and seeing how trends emerge, what history becomes so important for us to preserve. There's no way to predict all of that. Well, nothing, that's why you amend things. I mean, the reality is, but culturally, you have to be what today may be significant, may not be significant tomorrow. I mean, it also becomes a very fine line on nostalgic and where people, I mean, because Jackie Robinson played at the stadium, he also played in hundreds of other stadiums. There, I mean, it doesn't mean that it's the most significant and it was the first, so do we stop to tear that down because of that one factor or a handful of that could be resolved by a marker? So what are the distinctions? And I don't feel like we get that here. And that's, to me, is what makes this thing work and what it makes it doesn't work, because if not, it's just gonna be a fight every time. One of the first times I met Kristen Hampton was when the DAR thought that we had thrown away the marker for the Lafayette house that Lafayette had slipped in when we built 1411 Javastri. We preserved that marker in this now in a prominent place out front. I'm just glad we had that saved. Too sweet, I'm sure, so. We tried on architectural significance. I know this is not. And I appreciate you putting this together. Try and hard, because I understand this is not something that people do every day. We do, but you know, so we're sort of working on a different, from a different perspective probably. So in terms of trying to explain architectural significance to in a way that's understandable, this is a, it's a textbook that's used in preservation architectural courses, and it's something that we use all the time. And I'll just pass it around. It's a, I feel that to the American houses, and it gives you, I've marked some of the pages there, they're probably 40 to 50 different architectural styles at least in that book. And it shows the sorts of things that we always look at when we're evaluating a structure for architectural significance. For instance, like colonial revival houses are usually rectangular masses with low to medium pitched roofs, side gables, very symmetrical facades. Always a central opening for the main entry. You know, bungalows may have very extended eaves exposed rafters, probably detailed crafted doors. Interesting use of materials sometimes. The bungalows we have here are very different from the bungalows you find in California. You know, and then Tudor houses have half timbered. That's because we're a lot older than California. Right. Yeah, and you know, we have a Prairie style house here, or influenced at least, which you don't see, it's a rare house in Melrose Heights. You know, we have some very fine examples of Tudor houses with a lot of the characteristics put together in a well proportioned and well expressed way on some of these houses. And so some Tudors are better than other Tudors. They have a lot of the details that you find on those houses that are detailed out there that say these are common expressions of Tudor houses. So when we're looking at something for architectural significance, we're looking at the form and the massing. We're looking at the detailing. We're looking at what is a good expression of this house and how many of these elements does it have? Does it retain? And so that makes it very difficult, I guess, for us to sort of say it's gonna be this, this, this and this. Well, then my question would be for that is, is that looking over the list that the 265 buildings and then riding around, what kind of majority of them on houses? Commercial businesses. Right. And so should we be looking at this from two different perspectives? Same type of ordinance, but different ways because I think we're talking about apples and oranges when we're talking about a unilateral process. There's a lot difference between a house in the Robert Mills district and a, you know, we could argue the fire station if we wanted to, for some people, that's very significant. Well. And that and others, you know, it wasn't. And so, you know, should we be looking at this? Cause this book is, it'd be interesting to read some more about it, but we'll put that on there with Christopher Lawrence. That's right. But I think that maybe that may help with the criteria as well. Right, and there are, to your point, there are architectural styles for our commercial buildings too, like the Senate fire station is an international style building. And so it does have many of the same, you know, some of those are not addressed in McAllister, but they're addressed in other structures. That's only residential, but we do have styles associated with those. And so. And that goes back to, you know, is it the most significant? Is it the first? Is it that? Those are key words that I think are missing from my criteria. Right. Cause just to use that as a blanket, we could blanket hundreds of buildings downtown for that and prohibit. Well, let me ask you this just for my own clarity. So would you want to see something that said that it's an exemplary example of its kind? Or is... That's not a bad word to use. What was the word? You didn't bring your... I'm sorry, Mr. Deval, exemplary example of its kind. I think I read that in somebody else's ordinance that I think, I can't remember what city it was that I read in the past. I'll have to look it up. That was one of the words I think they used as kind of a compromise between because it was very distinctive. So the time is what keeps coming up. Yeah, that's a big piece. Did you guys have any thoughts on any ways to still accomplish what we're trying to do but shorten the time that it takes to get there? Well, I know y'all have all heard me say that 180 days is what has been recommended to us as what's workable in other communities. I think we could shape some time off of that and see how it worked because I know that's what y'all keep struggling with the comments you're getting. We could try for 150 days to take another, you know, several. Well, what if you looked at it differently? What if we had, if the criteria was a little more tightened and we had a specific thing, so within a first 30 days or 45 days, if it didn't hit these boxes, then it moves on. You know, if those boxes, there's questions in there and you further research and it goes there. I think that when you get into 150 to 180 days, you have completely taken that property off anything for one year unless we don't have to argue about that. It's reality. So, you know, if that's the process, then let's find the balance so it's fair to the other side of that. I think in some of these properties, what happens here is the review's gonna be very quick because if we adopt a certain amount of these properties that are already eligible, then that's 50% of the lifts that we're talking about. So we're halfway there already. I think from the majority, we all agree, we're halfway there in that discussion. For us, that's pre-identified. Right, right. You know that it's gonna be a lot. Right, so we've taken some off on that end and then if we take some off on the other end, we can squeeze it in a little tighter. Defined list, you know, that first whatever, how many it was, we figured it out last time. All right, we know that. Let's work on that. And then the back half, let's work on that. And that gets us moving in the right direction because it creates a balance, both for the community, the property owner, and the preservation, which, you know, we have to balance all of that moving forward. It can't just be, well, you know, we 100%. Well, we're gonna disagree on properties, but let's put it to the case. Let's put the facts behind it and let's make sure it's not nostalgic. I think if we had that pre-identified list, already marked list, that even before they walk into the office and ask for a demolition permit, there's gonna be all these discussions that you require to do once you get into the formal process. Once you've punched in the planning department, asking for a demolition permit, and you gotta produce all these things, which I think is another conversation we need to have is who's gonna produce all these things? Are you gonna put it on the property on? Let's say if it's a home, is the homeowner gonna have to hire these engineers? But I think those conversations will be held before they even walk into the office if we pre-identify these people. We can publish them. Just to that point, let me make sure we've got what you're talking about. This is how we're understanding the process. We, the identified list that we've discussed, so just for this example, we'll say properties that are currently eligible or on the national register that are not currently protected, those would be identified and whatever mechanism within the ordinance, which would probably be some sort of demolition delay overlay, would come through the process of planning commission and city council, you all would actually apply that protection to those properties. So at that point in time, demolition delay would be in force for those properties. So there would not be any looking at the criteria, looking at the significance because you already did that and applied it. So whatever is eligible, I think at least where we were going is not, is part of the ordinance making that an amendment and those buildings that we agree upon off this list, which I think are what you use A and B as your lettering. Those go on there. They are automatically on the protection. The next series of things will go through that process because if it's an F or an E, then we need to discuss it. All right, so what we would do is when we're bringing this demolition delay ordinance with to you, we would bring this initial list of national register eligible and listed properties and then we would be evaluating the rest of them to come through. So at that time, if someone were to come to the office for a demolition permit, that would trigger whatever this period is, be it 150, whatever days, in which the materials have to be gathered and then at the end it goes to the DDRC for them to say yes, demo, no demo. So I just wanna make sure we're all understanding that process. And I think that we need to take that time, once they've been identified, and know they're identified, they come in and ask for the permit and you can have 90, 120 days. That's the time that we're trying to sell that owner on there's a better use than tearing it down, that you can go in there and use tax credits to get all these benefits and all. So that's the cooling off period where you're trying to convince the property owner that it has something that he wants to tear down or she wants to tear down, that it's worth more to them to rehab and maintain it than it would be to tear it down. Well, I think we're looking to, if it fits the criteria to be saved. I mean, this isn't to stop anything from happening. There's a process and if it's significant, if it's eligible and it's a significant historic site, obviously, yes, that's the process, but the part of it's not convincing anybody to do anything, it's showing what needs to be preserved and what doesn't and then balancing those out. So I think we have to be careful how we project that because I don't think it's when the staff's job. That's also exploring their options. So you consider a criminal compress. I mean, clearly the owners wanted to demolish it and they weren't really looking at trying to preserve it, but you actually found buyers who came to the table and tables and you know, in fairness in that, if the city hadn't gotten involved and went and legislate, that ownership didn't have the same legislation and the same things available to them that Danny and them did. So it's different and he'll tell you that. So I mean, you have to be careful when we use those examples because that's not apples to apples about what we're talking about. But it's the outcome we're looking for. So we got to figure out how do you achieve those win-win outcomes when able to. And I think that's kind of what we're trying to figure out is what is that process. It may look different for different owners. And I think it's gonna be different, you're right. Let me ask that I should know this, but aren't there some properties that are on the state, historic lists that are not on the national registry? Well, there's a local designation and there's a national designation. And so, yes, you're exactly right. So we have some properties in national register areas or that are national register structures that fall outside of local districts. So they wouldn't be protected at all, because they have no demolition review, basically. And yeah, that's, does that answer your question? Yeah, I was just wondering since we're kind of coming up with the criteria for the initial list and we're using the national, are there any structures that we could foresee that may not have the national designation, but locally they've been given the local designation historically significant to our community, I guess is what, I don't know the differences. So are there, I guess my question is, Robyn's taken her head, are there structures that might have some local significance so they have some kind of statement designation that they're not on the national registry? But that's part of what we're talking about is what's that true criteria because where historic Columbia may feel strongly about the majority of the community or those people who I think may not, I don't know that. I think a lot of it's captured in the list that they put together and I think it encompasses some of the state buildings as well, if I read the list. And I went and looked at a lot of these properties. So I got a feel of. You physically? Yeah, I physically wrote around and looked at a lot of these because some of them I think are very much we need to incorporate right from the beginning and the other ones we need to have some debate and discussion about. So that was gonna be, that's my ultimate question, like initially if there were some that were on that state list but not national, are we are going to go ahead and put them on the list so that again the owners are aware and then you kind of cut that timeframe of understanding that you might have to go through some extra hoops. Right, I think anything we see that we think would make the list that's significant but unprotected that's, we'd wanna include it. So from a procedural standpoint, would it be possible for y'all to take this document and try to merge the devolved option with the staff option and then in between let's work on the criteria and the timing so that we could do a draft so that we could, I'd like to ask Mr. Garvin, Robin and some other folks to be engaged with us at the next meeting where we could talk about some of this so that we're getting, and I mentioned Mr. Garvin because I think he's a good example of somebody who is in the development community working every day but also has preserved some significant buildings downtown and Mark Hood the same way. Right, and I have worked with Scott a great deal on buildings and to consult him about the document checklist and the time periods and all of that. Now it would be good to hear from his perspective and at the same time, timing and some of the other things that we could figure out, look at too is, is we talk about a lot of penalizing people or what is the other benefit if we delay somebody. I mean I think that's a fair question to ask if you prohibit me from doing something to my property, what's my incentive in the long run? Especially if it ends up not being, it ends up surviving the process. You need to be careful in getting into that territory but then you're getting into a regulatory taking. Well you could argue that you're taking it anyway by delaying it because it's subjective to, at 180 days the DERC could decide, well then we think we need to continue this process or you know what, we were wrong, now you gotta go through the process. There was a time 10 years ago when Earl and others were talking about regulatory takings and any action taken by a municipality or county or whatever that decreased the value of your property could be compensated so you pass a zoning, especially a down zone, you might be late on the line for lots of money so you gotta be careful how you word that. I think this isn't about devaluing the property, you're just, part of it is your handcuffing select for a period of time. To me, having less time in the process and very distinct criteria and whatever we can put on a list from the beginning is really gonna significantly cut down what, how many of you that we're gonna have to go through the process and I think we can agree on a good portion of this list, I think there's a lot that a lot of other ones have to be debated with. It's a start. So I'm thinking you said two weeks, don't lose it. No, I would say no, there's no way in two weeks that Kristen's about to throw a fruit across the table. No, I think we, you know, based on, I think we need to significantly take, I think we can get it completely before the end of our fiscal year, but I don't think that based on budgets and everything else that everybody's having to deal with to ask someone to come back in two weeks, probably, you know, we're probably looking at the backside of April, which would give us time to maybe have some informal meetings with different folks from the community refine this list a little bit more for phase one, because I see us constantly amending. Going through the process, I think we're gonna constantly be amending and adding things to it as things come up. I don't think this is your only shot at the world coming in, but I think we have to be very specific about what that initial list is. And I think there's, you know, criteria A and B hit that from the beginning, so you know those are the easy checklist. I think it's the process, the timing, and getting the criteria we can encompass, because I don't think list A, or our initial list, will go through that same process, because we already know that that's our list that we want to protect. We're not having to prove it because they're already eligible, so I guess we'll try and decide. So I think that would be my suggestion as we move forward. Anything else? Is that workable? I think so. Yeah. That was a weird error. Thank you.