WE LOVE SOMERVILLE AND WANT TO PROTECT IT FROM BAD IDEAS.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE CURRENT DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE. WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CANNOT INCLUDE RENOVATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A STRUCTURE. THAT IS RENOVATION, NOT DEMOLITION.
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURPOSES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TERM "DEMOLITION" REFERS TO DEMOLITION OF A PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND CANNOT APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS OVER 75 YEARS OLD, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF SOMERVILLE IS OVER 75 YEARS OLD.
THE NEW TERMS "PARTIAL DEMOLITION" & "SERIAL DEMOLITION" IN THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE ARE DECEPTIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE, SINCE THEY AIM TO CONTROL RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS, AND NOT JUST DEMOLITION. THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSAL.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY CONTROLLER OF NON-HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE THE SOMERVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND NOT A HISTORIC OFFICER.
WE BELIEVE THAT HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PRESERVED. WE LOVE OUR HISTORIC SOMERVILLE BUILDINGS. HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PROACTIVELY IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC BY THE SOMERVILLE HISTORIC COMMISSION. HOWEVER, IF A HOME HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC, IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDER ANY HISTORIC COMMISSION CONTROL.
IMPORTANT: Please provide your SOMERVILLE ADDRESS in the COMMENT BOX!
Updates
July 9, 2018
The momentum behind this push is undeniable. People are clearly tired of seeing renovation confused with demolition.
Reached 100 supporters
July 9, 2018
35 Comments
This city used to be known as 'Slummerville'. People have been repairing their homes and desirability of living in the city has risen. Now you want to declare my triple-decker of 'historic value'!? Why are you attacking responsible property owners????
This is an extensive overreach of the government into people's choices for their houses. Worse, it is an administrative nightmare for any homeowner who wants to make very reasonable changes in his/her house, even without much impact on the appearance. I am very concerned about this!
Absolutely NO such revised "demolition" ordinance should be passed. The language is ambiguous and uncertain and can be applied to each and every kind of renovation that any owner of building 75 years old or older may want to do.
We think it is a mistake to restrict home improvements based on an arbitrary designation of "Historic". This is giving power to the Historic Commission that should be reserved for the Zoning Board. Peter and Barbara Marshall
Demolition isn’t the issue so much as the “partial” demolition aspect; it will create all sorts of logistical issues and troubles for homeowners/the city.
33 Springfield Street Somerville, MA 02143 This is OUR property and OUR LEGAL RIGHTS are continually being manipulated to benefit all but the OWNER. Another $ scheme to push the little person around all while "creating their ideal" neighborhood. WE OWN the property, WE PAY their TAXES, LET US make the decisions...
Please vote "no"
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
WE LOVE SOMERVILLE AND WANT TO PROTECT IT FROM BAD IDEAS.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE CURRENT DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE. WE OPPOSE THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEFINITION OF DEMOLITION IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CANNOT INCLUDE RENOVATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO A STRUCTURE. THAT IS RENOVATION, NOT DEMOLITION.
FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PURPOSES, WE BELIEVE THAT THE TERM "DEMOLITION" REFERS TO DEMOLITION OF A PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED HISTORIC STRUCTURE, AND CANNOT APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS OVER 75 YEARS OLD, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF SOMERVILLE IS OVER 75 YEARS OLD.
THE NEW TERMS "PARTIAL DEMOLITION" & "SERIAL DEMOLITION" IN THE PROPOSED DEMOLITION REVIEW ORDINANCE ARE DECEPTIVE AND INAPPROPRIATE, SINCE THEY AIM TO CONTROL RENOVATIONS, ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS, AND NOT JUST DEMOLITION. THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSAL.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY CONTROLLER OF NON-HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE THE SOMERVILLE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND NOT A HISTORIC OFFICER.
WE BELIEVE THAT HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PRESERVED. WE LOVE OUR HISTORIC SOMERVILLE BUILDINGS. HISTORIC BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PROACTIVELY IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC BY THE SOMERVILLE HISTORIC COMMISSION. HOWEVER, IF A HOME HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC, IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDER ANY HISTORIC COMMISSION CONTROL.
IMPORTANT: Please provide your SOMERVILLE ADDRESS in the COMMENT BOX!
Updates
July 9, 2018
The momentum behind this push is undeniable. People are clearly tired of seeing renovation confused with demolition.
Reached 100 supporters
July 9, 2018
35 Comments
30 College Avenue While I love Historic Architecture, Ordinary Homes must NOT be controlled at the cost of a homeowners civil and zoning rights. That is simply madness!
This city used to be known as 'Slummerville'. People have been repairing their homes and desirability of living in the city has risen. Now you want to declare my triple-decker of 'historic value'!? Why are you attacking responsible property owners????
This is an extensive overreach of the government into people's choices for their houses. Worse, it is an administrative nightmare for any homeowner who wants to make very reasonable changes in his/her house, even without much impact on the appearance. I am very concerned about this!
Absolutely NO such revised "demolition" ordinance should be passed. The language is ambiguous and uncertain and can be applied to each and every kind of renovation that any owner of building 75 years old or older may want to do.
We think it is a mistake to restrict home improvements based on an arbitrary designation of "Historic". This is giving power to the Historic Commission that should be reserved for the Zoning Board. Peter and Barbara Marshall
Demolition isn’t the issue so much as the “partial” demolition aspect; it will create all sorts of logistical issues and troubles for homeowners/the city.
33 Springfield Street Somerville, MA 02143 This is OUR property and OUR LEGAL RIGHTS are continually being manipulated to benefit all but the OWNER. Another $ scheme to push the little person around all while "creating their ideal" neighborhood. WE OWN the property, WE PAY their TAXES, LET US make the decisions...
Please vote "no"
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 250 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept our Terms and Privacy Policy and agree to occasional emails about petitions. Unsubscribe anytime.
Share this petition
Share this petition to help it reach more people.
Your share link
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
30 College Avenue While I love Historic Architecture, Ordinary Homes must NOT be controlled at the cost of a homeowners civil and zoning rights. That is simply madness!