Category Archives: Economy

The economy in Newburyport, MA

Newburyport, The Waterfront back in 1972

In my hunt at the Archives at the Newburyport Public Library I found these two photographs of what Newburyport’s waterfront, and Newburyport looked like in 1972 and in 1973.

NRA lots in 1972, press photo to enlarge.

Quite a mess. And in the photo you can see the gap between the brick building and what is now the Fire House Center for the Arts, where Bossy Gillis’ gas station was demolished (see previous post).

NRA lots 1972, press photo to enlarge.

Photographs courtesy of the Archival Center at the Newburyport Public Library.

All of the Urban Renewal photographs that I took courtesy of the Archives at the Newburyport Public Library can be seen here.

(If you download an image would you please give The Archival Center at The Newburyport Public Library and The Newburyport Blog credit. Thank you.)

Photos of Newburyport Urban Renewal and Bossy Gillis’ Gas Station

I thought I would put up some of the photos that I took at the Archives at the Newburyport Public Library. These are photos of Bossy Gillis’ gas station down at Market Square, and its demolition, along with some of the text and the dates – October 1968 and December 1968.

Bossy Gillis's garage, Market Square, Urban Renewal, press image to enlarge.

Bossy Gillis' gas station, Market Square, Urban Renewal, press image to enlarge.

Bossy Gillis's Garage, Urban Renewal, Newburyport, press image to enlarge.

Bossy Gillis' gas station, Urban Renewal, Newburyport, press image to enlarge.

Bossy Gillis's garage demolition, Newburyport, press image to enlarge.

Bossy Gillis' gas station demolition, Newburyport, press image to enlarge.

All photographs courtesy of the Archives at the Newburyport Public Library. Press images to enlarge.

All of the Urban Renewal photographs that I took courtesy of the Archives at the Newburyport Public Library can be seen here.

(If you download an image would you please give The Archival Center at The Newburyport Public Library and The Newburyport Blog credit. Thank you.)

Newburyport Local Historic District (LHD) Meeting, March 26, 2012

LHD Study Committee Meeting, March 26, 2012, press to start video.

Here is the video of the Local Historic District (LHD) Study Committee public meeting held on March, 26, 2012 at Newburyport City Hall. The meeting was full of very helpful and constructive information, and the video is well worth watching.

The Local Historic District (LHD), Newburyport and Fines

What the “Say No to LHD” folks are saying about fines in the literature that is being mailed and handed out, is not true. If you do something in Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD) that the LHD Commission (should the Newburyport City Council vote in favor of the LHD) might have some reservations about, you will not be fined $500 a day into bankruptcy.

This is what our Newburyport City Ordinance says about fines:

Section X-G

“If the notice of violation and order is not complied with promptly, the inspector of buildings shall institute the appropriate action or proceeding at law or in equity to prevent any unlawful action, use or condition and to restrain, correct or abate such violation. Penalties for violations may, upon conviction, be affixed in an amount not to exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each offense. Each day, or portion of a day, that any violation is allowed to continue shall constitute a separate offense.”

That sounds pretty fierce and downright scary.

What the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) said at the informational meeting for Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD), and I am paraphrasing here, is that the Planning Board, the Building Inspector and the ZBA all have the ability to use fines but they do NOT and never have levied fines.

What was explained was that fines are there in municipal law as a last resort. If they did not exist, a developer could come into town and say, “I’ll do anything I want,” and there would be no legal tool to stop them.

What was explained that evening is that the same criterion would apply to the Newburyport’s proposed LHD.

Letter to the Editor on Newburyport’s LHD

Historic Newburyport Home

There is a wonderful Letter to the Editor in today’s Newburyport Daily news about Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD) by L.M. Klee.

“This is not about “I win, you lose” or “I’m right and you’re wrong”; it is about a win for Newburyport’s stature in the annals of American architecture and history. The bones of this city were here long before we were. Most of the residents are not related to the founders, the ship builders and early farmers, but in some way, we are here today because of them. To have lived here for two years or several generations and ignore Newburyport’s historical prominence architecturally seems disrespectful. We are fortunate to be a part of that history and need to consider our roles in protecting that seriously. We can collectively shape the city’s future and allow future generations to experience a sense of its history long after our presence is felt on these streets. The responsibility for that today is only ours.”

To read the entire letter press here.

And to see the list of all 49 Letters to the Editor in the Newburyport Daily News, and their links, written in favor of Newburyport’s proposed LHD press here.

Fines and Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD)

The literature that is being mailed, handed out by those who oppose Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD) , the “Say No to LHD” folks, would have you believe that if you do something in the proposed LHD that the LHD Commission (should the Newburyport City Council vote in favor of the LHD) might have some reservations about, you will be fined $500 a day into bankruptcy.

I think this is what one could call “propaganda” because it is so ridiculously not true.

Good grief!

(Definition of propaganda: “Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.” “The deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc.”)

On Monday night at the LHD informational meeting the subject of fines was cleared up (at least for those who have an open mind, and for those who don’t think that the LHD is some sort of government conspiracy).

What the chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) said, and I am paraphrasing here, is that the Planning Board, the Building Inspector and the ZBA all have the ability to use fines but they do NOT and never have levied fines.

Fines are there in municipal law as a last resort. If they did not exist, a developer could come into town and say, “I’ll do anything I want,” and there would be no legal tool to stop them.

The LHD Study Committee is writing a city ordinance, a city law, which is not done lightly. (And the LHD Study Committee is not a “group” the way one of the leaders of the “Say No to LHD” keeps describing them.)

The drafting of a municipal law is a “process,” and is a “work in progress.”

And the LHD Study Committee is still clarifying the whole “fine” thing in the ordinance-law that is in the process of being written.

So no, contrary to the propaganda being distributed by the “Say No to LHD” folks, if you live in Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD), you would not be fined daily into bankruptcy.

As was explained at the informational hearing on Monday night, the same criterion would apply to the proposed Newburyport LHD that applies to the Newburyport Planning Board and the Newburyport ZBA.

Chimneys are New England, Newburyport Iconic

It has been suggested by some of the anti-LHD group that for a homeowner to be required to maintain/keep their chimney or chimneys in the proposed LHD is basically un-American.

Oh good grief!

Chimneys in New England and Newburyport are iconic. Much the way New England church steeples are iconic.

They are a fundamental, intrinsic, deep-rooted symbol of what it means to live in an historic New England home. Of what it means to live in a historic Newburyport, Massachusetts home.

And really and truly I think that most of those who oppose the proposed Newburyport Local Historic District (LHD) would agree.

I’ve included some examples of “iconic” homes with chimneys in Newburyport (all courtesy of the City of Newburyport, MA).

Historic Newburyport Home

Local Historic District (LHD) Public Meeting, March 19, 2012

The video of the Local Historic District (LHD) public informational meeting on March 19, 2012, is actual better than being in the meeting itself. The the speakers as well questions and answers are much easier to understand. There is a lot of good information on the video about the proposed LHD. It is well worth watching.

Local Historic District Public Meeting, March 19, 2012, press to start video

The March 19, 2012 Local Historic District (LHD) informational public meeting at Newburyport City Hall.

Facts about Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD)

Facts about Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD)

Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD) consists of High Street and downtown Newburyport from Winter to Federal Street. (It just includes those areas. It does not include Plum Island.) For a map of the proposed LHD press here.
The purpose of the proposed LHD is to protect and preserve distinctive historic characteristics in the proposed area.
High Street and downtown are vital to cultural and economic the wellbeing of the city.
There is no longer protection for downtown Newburyport. The Urban Renewal Plan for Downtown Newburyport expired in 2005.
High Street was almost destroyed by MassHighway in 1999. The LHD provides protection to the roadway so that would never happen again.
The LHD strives to create a balance between protection of our historic heritage and homeowner’s rights.
The creation of an LHD is an ongoing process that continues to incorporate public feedback.
The LHD deals with architecture that is only visible from the public way.
The LHD only applies to architecture built before 1930.
The LHD does not affect ordinary maintenance and repairs, landscaping, sidewalks, terraces, roofing material, shutters, shutter hardware, gutters, storm doors, storm windows, exterior lights, driveways, and minor details such as paint color (for all all of the outside of the building, including doors and trim).
The LHD does not affect the interior of a building, and by state law can never affect the interior of a building.
By Massachusetts state law, the LHD can not be voluntary and home owners cannot “opt-out.”
Fines: The Planning Board, the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) all have the ability to use fines, but they do not and never have levied fines. Fines are in municipal law as a last resort. If they did not exist, a developer could come into town and say, “I’ll do anything I want,” and there would be no legal tool to stop them. The same criterion would apply to the proposed LHD.
By state law the only tool available to prevent demolition of historic homes is a LHD. Zoning laws cannot solve this issue.
The LHD will be voted on by the Newburyport City Council, and needs a super majority of the Newburyport City Council votes, 8 out of 11 councilors.
If the LHD passes, by law the LHD requires the creation of a commission to oversee the LHD, that is made up only of Newburyport residents.
If the LHD passes, by law the LHD ordinance cannot be changed without a super majority of the Newburyport City Council Vote, 8 out of 11 councilors.
If the LHD passes, by law the LHD cannot be expanded except by a very long and tedious process, just like the one that Newburyport has been going through for the last 4+ years.

Proposed LHD Map

The Tappan House, 1 Littles Lane, Soon to be Demolished

The Tappan House, Courtesy of P.Preservationist

“One billionaire’s castle is another billionaire’s teardown. Never mind the existing mansion—it’s the location these moguls want, not someone else’s hand-me-down house. Instead of renovating, the very rich call in the wrecking ball and build their personal playgrounds from scratch.”

One of the most startling ones to me is a mansion bought by Steve Jobs.

“For years, Steve Jobs, the founder of Apple wanted to tear down a 17,000-square-foot, 35-room Spanish-style mansion he owned since the 1980s in Woodside, Calif., south of San Francisco. He instead envisioned a smaller, likely more techno-savvy home for his family on the lot. After battling legal challenges to save or move the 1920s “Jackling House,” built by the California architect George Washington Smith for a prosperous copper entrepreneur, Jobs received a demolition permit. Howard N. Ellman, Jobs’s lawyer, said the house was bulldozed in February but Jobs’s dwindling health put the plans on hold. Janet Koelsch, the Woodside town clerk, confirms there have been no applications for development received for the property since demolition of the house.”

The article “America’s Doomed Mansions,” By Marcelle Sussman Fischler, Forbes.com, November 21, 2011 can be read here.

Not to compare anyone in Newbury or Newburyport to Steve Jobs!! But, the tale and others like it in the article does remind one of the impending demolition of 1 Littles Lane, the Tappan House, in Newbury, MA, just down the street from Newburyport.

The article in the Newburyport Daily News about the impending demolition of the Tappan House can be read here.

To read more about the Tappan House, 1 Little’s Lane, Newbury, MA, press here.

Newburyport March Local Historic District (LHD) Meetings

This is an announcement from the Newburyport Local Historic District (LHD) Study Committee:

Got Questions about the Proposed LHD?

Get the answers at two

Public Information Forums at the

City Hall Auditorium

1. Ask the Experts – Monday, 19 March 2012 at 7:00 P.M.

Preservation lawyer Marilyn Fenollosa, preservation consultant Gretchen Schuler, and Massachusetts Historical Commission Director of Local Government Programs Chris Skelly will answer your questions about LHDs in general, preservation law, and additional preservation options among other topics.

2. Follow-up – Monday, 26 March 2012 at 7:00 P.M.

Informal discussion groups with Study Committee members.

Send in your questions to lhdsc@cityofnewburyport.com or

Local Historic District Study Committee

City Hall, 60 Pleasant Street

Newburyport, MA 01950

To see the new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) meant to clarify some of the misinformation and confusion about Newburyport’s proposed LHD see previous post or press here or on the City of Newburyport’s website here.

To see the NEW updated LHD proposed Guidelines (3/5/2012) press here.

To see the NEW updated LHD proposed Ordinance (3/5/2012) press here.

New FAQ about Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD)

I just received this via email. This is the new, updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) by the Newburyport Local Historic District (LHD) Study Committee. I imagine that the FAQ are in response to much of the confusion and misinformation that is out there about Newburyport’s prosed LHD.

Frequently Asked Questions NEW

The Study Committee has revised the proposed ordinance and guidelines in response to public input. The process of creating an LHD that is fair to property owners and protective of the city’s historic architecture continues; please send questions and comments to lhdsc@cityofnewburyport.com.

Newburyport seems to have gotten along fine without an LHD; why have one now?

Appearances can be deceiving. In recent years there have been numerous tear downs, destructive repairs, and incompatible additions to historic buildings. Critically, the Newburyport Redevelopment Authority no longer oversees the downtown. The LHD would help stop harmful practices, encourage sympathetic renovations and new construction, and attract new property owners respectful of Newburyport’s historic character.

I take good care of my home and wouldn’t sell to anyone who would not; why is that not sufficient?

Sellers ordinarily cannot control what is done to their properties. And annual residential turnover in Newburyport is a high 15% despite the recession.

Would I have to go before the LHD Commission every time I wanted to do something to my house? And have to hire architects and lawyers?

No. Firstly, review applies only to exterior work viewable from the street on structures built before 1930. Secondly, whatever presently exists would be grandfathered in, so like may be replaced with like. Thirdly, most common work is excluded from review (see next question). Review would only be triggered if you already had to apply for a regular building permit and the work was not excluded by the preceding.

Where review is required, applicants are encouraged to have a preliminary working session with the Commission. You would not have to have professional help unless you wanted it.

What work is excluded from review?

A long list including ordinary maintenance and repair, landscaping, storm and screen windows and doors, exterior painting, roofing, gutters, and shutters (see section 4 of the ordinance).

How would windows be treated?

The guidelines emphasize repairing damaged windows, and windows in good repair give good energy efficiency with storms. However, replacement windows would be allowed if they matched the historic windows, and many such replacements are available.

Could the Commission change the ordinance if it wanted to? And could the LHD be expanded?

Only with the same public review and two-thirds vote of the City Council that the proposed ordinance and guidelines themselves have required.

How would an LHD affect my taxes and the value of my house?

By law, there can be no effect at all on your real estate taxes; and many studies have shown that LHDs help maintain property values.

Who would be on the Commission?

Only City residents can be; and the ordinance requires that at least 3 of the 5 members also be residents of the district itself. The ordinance also recommends that membership include architects, realtors, historic preservationists, and business owners. The aim is a supportive Commission with useful expertise and broad community oversight.

The Newburyport Local Historic District Study Committee’s website can be found here.

To see the NEW updated LHD proposed Guidelines (3/5/2012) press here.

To see the NEW updated LHD proposed Ordinance (3/5/2012) press here.

The Newburyport Redevelopment Authority (NRA) in 2012

Courtesy of the Newburyport Public Library Archives, Ancient buildings demolished during Urban Renewal, The Unitarian Church on Pleasant Street in the background, Press image to enlarge

My fellow blogger Tom Salemi over at Newburyport Posts has taken a major civic plunge. No tip-toeing into the Newburyport civic world for Tom. Nope, a full dive, right in. Last week Tom Salemi’s appointment to the NRA (Newburyport Redevelopment Authority, not the National Riffle Association) passed the Newburyport City Council unanimously.

Everyone here at the Newburyport Blog, me and the frogs, are mighty proud.

It would be hard to pick a more controversial board or committee in our fair city of Newburyport than the NRA. (This is a vast understatement.)

The lots that the NRA are in charge of, have literally been fought over for the last 40+ years. And if P.Preservationist is right, “It is known that the Committee for the Open Waterfront are cracking open their old file cabinets and rallying to restart their efforts. This sounds like a huge brouhaha coming!” And that would surprise me not in the least.

I‘ve always thought that the issue of the waterfront, the NRA’s two dirt lots down by the waterfront, would never be resolved in my life time (to see long ago post, press here). Maybe this is the golden moment, who knows, we will see. But I am not holding my breath.

I’ve always thought that those two dirt lots are cursed (the history is so complex, who could begin to explain). And in my wanderings to find stuff about the proposed Newburyport Local Historic District (LHD), which includes downtown Newburyport, I came across the picture in this post (I think it was taken in 1968, but I’m not 100% positive), in the Newburyport Public Library Archives. The caption reads, “First Unitarian Church on Pleasant St. rises from area cleared of ancient buildings as Newburyport’s urban renewal program moves ahead.” And the photograph looks as if it is taken way, way back from the Unitarian Church, on those two dirt lots. (If you press the image, it will enlarge.)

The photograph is haunting. It is a reminder to me that when stuff is gone, it is gone for good. All those “ancient” houses gone for good. And I always wondered if that area, not to sound silly, is haunted. It has been so difficult to get anything accomplished over the last 40+ years, so many people have tried, that I really and truly wonder.

(If you download the image would you please give The Archival Center at The Newburyport Public Library and The Newburyport Blog credit. Thank you.)

“Say No to LHD” Campaign

It is possible that only Tom Salemi could approach the whole Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD) thing with humor, marked with wisdom and humility. (Alas, the Newburyport Blog‘s experience is what my fellow blogger recommends in his Newburyport Today article, that we be “a community” and “stay classy,” might not actually be possible in what has been dubbed, and what I thought had disappeared, but has seemingly been resurrected, “Cannibal City.”)

A bagel

Tom opens his article with his experience of being aggressively approached in front of Abraham’s Bagels by one of the “Say No to LHD” folks on their anti-LHD campaign, at 8:30 on a Saturday morning, as he was trying to get some breakfast (great bagels from Abraham’s Bagels, a thumbs up from this born and raised in New York, New Yawker, who knows from bagels, a “blow in,” a “newby,” moi, who has “only” lived here, in Newburyport, for 31 years) for his family.

In his piece in Newburyport Today, Tom Salemi (the author of the well loved blog, Newburyport Posts) writes, “But let’s all do this right. Let’s handle this with the same grace that we’ve employed with the IBEW protests. We don’t need to roll in the mud.”

And I agree with Tom, what is necessary is “an informed and engaged public,” Tom’s words.

And what Tom Salemi points out with grace and dignity, is at this point, the “Say No to LHD” folks are giving people information filled with inaccuracies and omission of the facts.

And, yes, this makes it difficult to have an informed and thoughtful discussion.

I guess aggressively handing out information in front of Abraham’s Bagels was not enough. The “Say No to LHD” folks have made a mass mailing-2,700 pieces of mail (which one of my neighbors, when they received the mailing, thought was going to be an anti-drug missive), including the flyer handed out in front of Abraham’s Bagels, full of misinformation, scare tactics and omission of the facts.

As one friend said to me, on one of my many walks around my beloved historic city, “It’s hard to get a positive message out there when the default reaction is ‘No,’ and you are dealing with lies” (their word, not mine).

You can read Tom Salemi’s article at Newburyport Today, February 16, 2012, “Take the Bagels, Leave the Petition,” here.

The online petition in favor of Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD) can be found here.

The Newburyport LHD Wars

From what I can make out, and George and the other “political consultants” to the Newburyport Blog can make out, there are two groups of folks who are against Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD).

The “Say NO to LHD” folks, who appear to be Tea Party folks, who are misrepresenting and distorting the facts (see previous posts here and here).

And it also appears that the opposition, also often very hostile opposition, which might be the “masses” that Newburyport City Councilor Dick Sullivan was referring to in his quote in the article on the Local Historic District by Brenda Buote in the Boston Globe that can be read here.

The film “A Measure of Change”

There is an amazing film made about Newburyport in 1975 called “A Measure of Change” that can be seen here. I think two of the comments below the video sum up what some of the more “silent” opposition to the LHD are feeling.

“…our heritage replaced by tourist traps, overpriced specialty shops, higher taxes, impossibly high rents for working-class citizens… I loved the old town, but it wasn’t rebuilt, it was essentially destroyed, and replaced with some architectural designs that our ancesters would never have tolerated. Why do you think so many former Newburyporters ARE former Newburyporters?? They can no longer afford to live there. The city has been taken over by special interests from out of state… This pathetic attempt to put lipstick on this pig won’t make it acceptable to me, for one.”

And another commentator in reply:

“You said it in a nut shell! I was born and raised there, but by the time i was 30ish my parents had to put their house on the market because they could no longer afford to live there. And they both grew up there as well, and hated to leave. They spend the rest of their day in NH.”

And from one of the opposition LHD petitions.

“…tell the do gooders to get a life and get out of ours.”

“Work in town. This is a really bad idea. Old time nbpter, not a blow in.”

“Another layer of socialist bureaucracy, by a board of permit komaczars who answer to no one with unlimited autocratic authority…And to think this whole nonsense began because some newby didn’t like the way his neighbor kept his property. Disgusting!”

Lots of anger there.

But at this point, and it could most certainly change, the pro-LHD petition now has 300 signatures, mostly from “blow ins,” who “blew in” 30 to 40 some years ago, to more recently. And the two anti-LHD petitions, one has 24 signatures, and the other has 4 signatures (I don’t think “Oecpexgrmu” counts).

So the “masses” that Dick Sullivan has referred to, might be the folks who are not “blow ins” or “newbies” or “do gooders,” but “old time Newburyporters” (“nbpter”).

I’ve been told that local historic districts don’t create friction in the community, but they do bring to the surface the frictions that already exist.

The “No LHD” Folks and Distortion of the Facts

One of the real problems I have with the “Say No to LHD” folks is not only presenting wrong information as the truth (see previous post), but also the weird distortion of the facts about Newburyport’s proposed Local Historic District (LHD). The point of the misinformation and distortion of the facts appears to be 1) to scare folks into either being terrified that this “socialist” agenda, or 2) just scaring them in general with distorted and false information. And that distorted information gets out there, and is perceived by good and well intentioned folks as fact.

I wish I was making this up.

The proposed Newburyport LHD is based on state law. Each state differs in their laws about a LHD. Our state law is called Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40C, which can be read here. The draft of the proposed LHD ordinance references Chapter 40C.

Folks have emailed me and I have read many “alternatives” to having a LHD. Have the guidelines under the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board, the Building Inspector to prevent another layer of government. Have a voluntary LHD the way they do in Rhode Island.

Our state law is very specific. And a LHD cannot be voluntary (it maybe in other states, but not in our state). By law, the Zoning Board, Planning Board and the Building Inspector do not have a say over what a LHD in our state would cover.

And if the LHD passes, by state law, the ordinance can only be amended by a super majority of the Newburyport City Council, 8 out of the 11 councilors. If the city wanted to expand the LHD, it would have to go through what it went through to create the proposed LHD. There would be a new investigation, the new area would be reviewed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, there would be a public hearing and it would need to be approved by the council by a super majority, 8 out of the 11 councilors. This is laid out in Section 3 of our state law, which can be read here.

State law requires a LHD Commission, and that is laid out in Section 4 of Mass General Law 40C which can be read here.

Also their claim that only 2 city residents will be on the LHD Commission is false. Our own Newburyport City law 2-62 states very clearly:

“Persons appointed to City of Newburyport boards, committees, commissions and authorities that are established by ordinance shall be residents of the City of Newburyport. This shall pertain to new appointments made after the date of approval of this section.”

The creation of the proposed Newburyport LHD is also a work in progress. As an example, this is from the Newburyport Daily News, February 13, 2012, by Dyke Hendrickson.

“The Local Historic District Study Committee has voted to avoid the potential of expensive roofing bills by deleting a measure in its draft that would have required slate roofs to be replaced by slate roofs on structures within the proposed historic district.

The committee met Thursday night, and in discussing feedback it has received, it was stated that homeowners have expressed concern about a proposed requirement stating that a building owner had to replace slate with slate.

In mulling the matter, co-chair Doug Locy called on his own experience to say that a slate roof could cost $110,000, while a roof of another (appropriate) material could cost about $10,000…

The five-member study committee agreed to delete “slate” from its final report, and thus the use of asphalt shingling or other surfaces will be included in the proposed ordinance the committee sends to the City Council in late spring.”

The revised guidelines for the proposed Newburyport LHD will be put up on the City’s website after March 1st. And the proposed 2nd draft of the LHD has not yet had a Public Hearing, or gone before the Newburyport City Council, where it will most, if not very likely, if not definitely be further amended.

The No LHD Literature-Wrong Information

I was given a copy of the literature (one piece of paper) from the “Say No To LHD” folks.

2 things immediately stand out as just wild misinformation !! Just plain WRONG information!! Hello.

1) Their claim that the LHD Commission would only require 2 Newburyport residents. WRONG! FALSE!

Every member on the LHD Commission would be a Newburyport resident, just like any other Newburyport board and commission. It was assumed that people would understand this. But since there is so much misinformation out there, the wording on the second draft of the LHD ordinance will clarify that the Commission will be made up of Newburyport residents only, not “outsiders.”

2) Their claim that any changes, including enlargement of the LHD or additional restrictions, would require a simple majority vote in the Newburyport City Council. WRONG! FALSE!

A) Any change to the ordinance would require a super majority vote in the council, 8 out of the 11 councilors. (Mass General Law 40C, Section 3)

“Any ordinance or by-law creating an historic district may, from time to time, be amended in any manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter by a two-thirds vote of the city council in a city..”

B) And if the LHD were to be enlarged, the city would go through the exact same thing that it has gone through with the creating this LHD. There would be a new investigation, the new area would be reviewed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, there would be a public hearing, and it would need to be approved by the council by a super majority, 8 out of the 11 councilors. (Mass General Law 40C, Section 3)

“An historic district may be enlarged or reduced or an additional historic district in a city or town created in the manner provided for creation of the initial district…”

Please, facts are important. Get the facts right!!

Boston Globe Article about Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD)

There is an article in today’s Boston Globe on Newburyport’s Local Historic District (LHD). There are some excerpts below. You can read the entire article by Brenda Buote here.

“The proposal has reignited a decades-old dispute between those who believe a local historic district is needed to guide future development and protect Newburyport’s rich heritage, and homeowners who view the proposed commission as an assault on their property rights…

Newburyport is widely considered one of the most architecturally rich areas of the country. High Street, for example, includes many Federal-style homes that were built between 1778 and 1818, at the height of New England’s maritime culture, as well as a number of homes that represent a greater variety of architectural styles, from bungalows to Colonials and Greek Revivals…

“There is a totally different kind of development pressure today than there was in the 1970s,’’ said Sarah White, chairwoman of the city’s Local Historic District Study Committee, noting that “many property owners on High Street have been approached because they have deep lots that could support another structure. For years, we’ve been relying on luck and the largesse of a lot of people who don’t want to sell to developers. The question is, how much longer do we want to rely on luck?’’…

Local historic districts offer the strongest form of protection for structures deemed worthy of preservation, giving a locally appointed commission the authority to review proposed changes to exterior architectural features visible from a public way. Under state law, such districts can be created by local ordinance, but require two-thirds majority approval by the municipality’s city council or town meeting…

White said the study committee is working to address the concerns of those opposed to the local historic district, and will be modifying language in the draft ordinance before the panel’s final report reaches the City Council…

Rather than having authority over buildings that are more than 75 years old, the commission would likely only review proposed alterations to buildings constructed before 1930, White said. In addition, the study committee plans to eliminate language requiring review of roofing materials, and add a residency requirement mandating that all members of the commission live in Newburyport….

White stressed that the levying of fines would be “rare, an absolute last resort,’’ and was quick to point out that if the commission is established, it would not be able to expand the district’s boundaries on a whim; a study committee would have to examine the issue, and any proposed change would have to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Likewise, if the commission wanted to extend its powers to include purview over new items, such as paint colors or landscaping, such a change would have to be approved by at least eight of the City Council’s 11 members, White said, to meet the two-thirds requirement.”…

Newburyport, the Kim Kardashian of the North Shore

“In the 1960’s Newburyport looked like a bomb hit it, it looked like Berlin after the war, it looks great now, we don’t need a Local Historic District (LHD).”

Link to “A Measure of Change”

In the 1960’s downtown Newburyport did look like a bomb hit it, just take a look at the film “A Measure of Change” made in 1975, it is pretty shocking, and yes, Newburyport has come a long, long way.

It used to be that the wealthy folks lived on High Street, and everyone else lived “below.” So much money has come into Newburyport, especially in the 7 years, that million dollar homes exist, not just on High Street, but throughout Newburyport. The whole demographic and dynamic has changed. And the almost (we hope never) demolition of 1 Little’s Lane (see earlier post), the stately circa 1800 Tappan House in Newbury, that was bought for 1.6 million dollars, raises a whole new question. The mindset to tear down as significant a house as 1 Little’s Lane, translates to the mansions on High Street (and lots and lots of other places that are “less significant,” but in my mind just as significant as 1 Little’s Lane).

The Tappan House, 1 Little’s Lane, Courtesy of P.Preservationist

Newburyport has become a new “it” place. The, if you will, Paris Hilton (dated) or Kim Kardashian of places to live in New England. The influx of folks with an enormous amount of money (and often no knowledge and sometimes no appreciation of historic houses) is a game changer. When Mr. Karp starts building, that amount of money is going to look like peanuts. And the “old” houses are now often seen, even if they are beautifully updated like 1 Little’s Lane, as “fixer-uppers.” Old wiring, no spa bathroom, no walk-in closets, no huge kitchens-family rooms, no media rooms, not enough bathrooms. Just old New England charm, which often just doesn’t cut it, apparently.

So the almost (we hope never) demolition of 1 Little’s Lane should be a wake up call to us all. We are way beyond the Newburyport of the 1960’s, we’ve made it to the “big time” — the Kim Kardashian of the North Shore. Folks come here because of the historic charm, and if we don’t protect it (Local Historic District-LHD), Newburyport will just one more suburban place outside Boston to hang a person’s hat.

Saving one House at a Time

The Tappan House, 1 Little's Lane, Newbury, Courtesy of P.Preservationist

What fabulous news. The demolition permit for 1 Little’s Lane in Newbury (see the Newburyport Blog’s earlier post), the stately circa 1800 large Federal style house, for the moment, has been put on hold, according to the story in today’s Newburyport Daily News.

And it is my experience that these things do not happen, and hopefully it will not happen, without an enormous amount of effort by all sorts of folks.

Would the demolition permit be withdrawn without a front page story by the Newburyport Daily News that alerted the community to the demolition permit taken out by the owners, and the story in Sunday’s Boston Globe about the possible demolition of the Tappan House, 1 Little’s Lane, with, in both cases, a photo of the historic dwelling.

One wonders.

And according to today’s story in the Newburyport Daily News, “The Patricans now have a variety of options at their fingertips, provided by a group of local designers and architects who volunteered their time to draw up ways to save the house…

The group’s plans fall into two categories: leaving the house where it is and making physical changes to screen it from the Patricans’ backyard, and moving the house to another location on the property.

The plan to leave the home in its present location calls for tree landscaping between the Patricans’ pool area and the Tappan House. It also calls for attaching “Jamaica shutters” to the Tappan House windows that face the Patrican property. The shutters have a historical appearance and could have legal restrictions placed upon them that would prohibit their removal unless an agreement is reached. It includes three potential scenarios for moving lot lines in order to give the Patricans more land around their main house and creating a lot for the Tappan House that could be resold.

The plans to move the house would push it farther down Little’s Lane, away from the Patricans’ house. It would be located near the edge of the field that is protected by the covenant. The house could then be sold to a new owner, along with the field.”

And I can assure you that an enormous amount of work, by incredibly talented and professional people, went into these plans for free, to provide alternatives for the owners of 1 Little’s Lane, to save the home, built by Revolutionary War privateer Offin Boardman for his son-in-law Amos Tappan, from demolition.

(One of the conceptual plans drawn up for the owners can be seen here.)

Hopefully there will be a win-win situation for this stately and historic property.