Claim: Scoville’s Commentary Was Divisive, Inaccurate
Regarding the Guest Commentary by Ken Scoville (June 18): In
addition to misrepresenting my words and actions, Mr. Scoville
demonstrates an incomplete understanding of the application of national
standards for historic preservation. Perhaps more troubling, he fails
to comprehend the very different roles of a city historic-preservation
officer and a citizen-advocate.
The most important role of a city’s historic-preservation officer is
to be a guardian of the rules and the integrity of the review process,
with the critical assistance of the Historical Commission appointed by
our elected officials. Preservationists lean heavily on the rules used
to define a historic building, which can trigger regulations for
protection. To say “never mind,” or “they should be changed,” when the
criteria do not suit an immediate purpose, undermines the objectivity
and utility of these national standards. The State Historic
Preservation Office has determined that the Santa Rita Hotel does not
meet the criteria for historic designation—unfortunately, too
much was demolished, and the rest was too altered, in 1972 and
1973.
The future of the hotel will now depend on voluntary action by the
property owner, and the debate has shifted out of the realm of historic
preservation to whether adaptive reuse of the 1917 remnant is
structurally feasible, and whether this is a “greener” approach than a
new energy-efficient building. Another important role of a city
historic-preservation officer is to try to bring developers to the
table to discuss such questions voluntarily when the rules do not
require them to. In the case of the Santa Rita Hotel, I convinced the
architect for the property buyer to voluntarily conduct a detailed
analysis of the feasibility of adaptive reuse, and the relative
“greenness” of reuse compared to a new building, and to present the
findings to the Historical Commission. Mr. Scoville falsely attributes
to me a statement during that presentation—saying that a new
corporate building bringing 300 employees would be good for downtown
development—which was irrelevant to the historic and energy
values of the existing building; the official minutes of the meeting
show that the statement was actually made by the property buyer’s
representative.
Mr. Scoville also refers to the still-evolving plan to repurpose the
historic Ghost Ranch Lodge for low-income elderly housing. His
assertion that I have “endorsed” demolition of half the number of
buildings is wrong. Rather, I have offered an opinion to the SHPO that
the developer’s originally proposed project saves the most significant
historic buildings and meets the national standards for preservation,
an evaluation the SHPO concurred with. However, I continue to work with
the developer to seek federal historic designation and historic tax
credits for rehabilitating as many of the existing buildings as
possible.
It is unfair to attack a historic preservation official for not
embracing and co-advocating a specific position of a citizen or group.
There are often constraints on the position of a public official, but a
citizen-advocate is free to articulate and push a particular vision.
Also, while the rules defining “what is historic” are usually quite
clear, specific aspects of historical significance, and the best
alternatives for adapting a historic building for new uses, are often
debatable. When preservation advocates are dismissive of equally valid
interpretations that differ from their own, the intellectual honesty of
the debate is lessened, and the common ground in pursuit of the same
goal has been lost.
Jonathan Mabry
Historic Preservation Officer
City of
Tucson
On Iran, Obama’s Playing It Just Right
Sen. John McCain joined ranks with other opposition blowhards on in
a unified attack of President Barack Obama’s reaction to the events
unfolding in Iran (“McCain Shows Why He Would Have Been a Lousy
President,” The Range: The Tucson Weekly‘s Old Pueblog, June
16).
McCain spoke out against Obama’s inaction and criticized the
president’s measured words. McCain suggests we should regress to a Cold
War-like stance in the Middle East. He says we should be students of
history and cites the founding fathers and a 19th-century congressman.
McCain still apparently fails to grasp that this is the 21st century.
We should be students of more recent history. Our meddling in
Iran in the 1950s resulted in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the
U.S. being portrayed as the Great Satan. Is this what McCain and the
Republicans truly seek? More destructive stalemates?
A president’s primary “weapon,” especially in the 21st century, is
diplomacy. Unlike George W. Bush, Obama’s style is not to overextend
our nation in terms of foreign meddling. Eventually, Obama will have to
engage and, yes, talk to whomever comes out on top in Iran. He is
carefully poised to do just that.
Peter J. Burns
Thank You—Not ME—For Not Breeding!
I remember the first time I saw the bumper sticker, “Thank you for
not breeding” (O’Sullivan, June 11). I pulled alongside the car
sporting it and glanced over at the couple. They were an
earnest-looking pair, tightlipped, bespectacled and pony-tailed. The
back seat was filled to capacity with children.
Anyone looking on this scene could be excused for being puzzled.
Still, I think the matter could have been easily cleared up. What was
needed was another sticker, saying, “You know who you are.”
Garth Gould
This article appears in Jul 2-8, 2009.