Live in the Historic District? Your Rights Go Away
Maud: "I have spent 50 years fooling people!"
The 4th of July is all about freedom and independence. There can be no better day to make a point about a government run amok than today. And little ole Vienna, Virginia in 2007 has a government that has crossed the line. An example? Recently, a Maud poster here named "EVS" wrote the following:
"[You] pump up your cause by claiming your Constitutional rights have been so egregiously violated. Seems more to me that you want out of what amounts to a homeowners association gone bad and your pissed because the ARB asked you to reveal your fence color? What's the deal with those lawsuits anyway? It's been years...and why not leave it to the courts....However, aren’t a citizen’s property rights subject to the State’s and/or municipality’s power and authority? In this case the Town’s authority to “preserve” that area. As part of its Historic District, the Town incorporated a quasi-judicial mechanism via the ARB, a set of codes, etc. that must be followed when determining whether to allow alteration, removal, etc. of homes in the district. There are those who would say that when you bought into the district you bought into those codes and so-called “arbitrary” rules and in some ways signed away your Constitutional rights. Also, still don’t understand how you didn’t look at the code or didn't notice the flaws BEFORE you moved into the district. Granted you might have been hard pressed to find a disclosure like, "Warning - when you buy a home in the Historic District, you are agreeing to give up your Constitutional Rights".
There you go tax payers of Vienna. That is the MORONIC logic in which the Town Council is spending tax dollars to defend their self-acknowledged defective historic district. They know they are wrong, they know the district is wrong, but they spend the tax money to show their power and mete out punishment to residents of Vienna who dare to assert their rights. But forget our rhetoric, look at the facts. Consider that on May 19, 1998 the then Town Attorney sent a memo to the Chairman of the Planning Commission justifying the addition of a brand new house to the historic district with no review by the review board. Imagine being the Vienna Town Council, defending this boondoggle of a historic district, and having this memo be part of the case:
"This will acknowledge receipt of yours of may 14, 1998 concerning the captioned and the question of its inclusion into the Windover Heights Historic District. The act of including or not including the property in the historic District is not a zoning or rezoning action and therefore, cannot be spot zoning. The age of the structure has no bearing on whether or not it should be included in the district. Your attention is invited to Section 18-280.2 of the Town's zoning ordinance concerning the boundaries of the Windover Heights Historic district. You will note that it is a historic district created by boundary and makes no reference to the age or character of the structures within the boundary. I have always maintained that if Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated at the local Giant, that structure would be historic. One the other hand, the mayor's antique chicken house is very old, but in my mind has no historic value."
This is not about preservation or rules or historic anything "EVS". This is all about two older women, Maud Gomer and Jane Goober, who have drifted into an arrogant state no longer hinged to reality. They are corrupt through and through.
Comments
"As part of its Historic District, the Town incorporated a quasi-judicial mechanism via the ARB, a set of codes, etc. that must be followed when determining whether to allow alteration, removal, etc. of homes in the district.
Wrong. The ARB , albeit equally unconstitutional, had nothing to do with the "Historic District" board. It is The Windover Heights Review Board, that allows for people with absolutely no credentials in preserving history to decide what you get to do with your property, and who gets to live there. This is discrimination, and very, very wrong.
Secondly, you are also wrong with the assumption that people moved into the area knowing full well that they knew they were moving into a district with such restrictions. I know and can prove that this is not the case. So, your argument that we have to put up with it because we knew what we were getting ourselves into is also unfounded in any shred of logic. But that is not the point. People moved into the South before the Civil War, when they knew owning slaves was wrong, and by your logic, we should be forced to accept it because we knew it going into the South. Great logic? Not on your life. So, wake up and take an honest look at the crap you just typed.
In any event, the TOV continues to push this ill-fated board under the guise of preserving history, when they know and have admitted that they know it's wrong. That is the way a government get into trouble.
Posted by: EVS is Stupid | July 5, 2007 10:52 AM
Thanks again for the kind words.
You can argue as to which Board has the authority, but overall, doesn't the Town have a regulatory ordinance that permits them to regulate changes to property in the "historic district”?
Maybe some of my comments may have been more applicable to HOA boards which, generally aren’t bound by constitutional restrictions on governments because the law views them as private business entities and accepts that all the owners have voluntarily agreed to be bound by the covenants by virtue of having bought a unit in the development.
But, read this http://www.oldnorthknoxville.org/archives/13myths.htm, you may agree that historic district ordinances are usually perfectly legal and constitutional, thus debunking your “constitutional myths”, many of which are addressed in this article.
Lastly, if you read the postings on this blog, we are not talking about (for the most part) serious criminal activity. You will see that these lawsuits are over whether or not someone could put up a fence, or whether or not a Board was enforcing the rules. We are talking about petty disputes, that in most cases, the parties involved were either too stupid to sit down and work things out or they were too proud to compromise. By purchasing a home in such a flawed district - you assumed all risk and liability that comes with being under the control of that district.
If my understanding is considered moronic and stupid (thanks by the way) than so be it.
P.S. these folks having the proper credentials and some of the flaws - does not necessarily make it "unconstitutional".
P.P.S. When/how have they restricted "who gets to live there"? If they did, they should've considered leaving you out...
Posted by: EVS | July 5, 2007 04:06 PM
Every time you add "more", you put your foot farther into your mouth. Either you are a moron or you are acting like one for some unknown agenda. You clearly have no understanding of the law or the issues in this situation in any, way, shape or form.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | July 5, 2007 04:14 PM
Hey, I never claimed to be an expert on the law or the constitution - are you?
If so, enlighten me, as all I ever get from you is the "no rules" rant and "my rights have been violated".
Are personalities/qualifications of board members a violation? Is the fact that there are flawed ordinances/code a violation?
Why don't you cite specifically how the Town has violated the constitution, their authority under the law and in turn, your property rights. Is there case law that supports your claim?
While you're at it, debunk the "myths" I cited earlier and ref. below:
Myth 1: Historic Preservation is unconstitutional.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Historic preservation, and the well-drafted historic preservation ordinance, is perfectly constitutional. The basic legal support is contained in Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City,1 the seminal 1978 decision
of the U.S. Supreme Court that for the first time clearly upheld historic preservation as a valid component of the "police power," the term that encompasses that trilogy of local government obligations: the protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Historic preservation has been recognized by court after court at both the state and federal levels as a legitimate exercise of the police power and necessary for the protection of the general welfare.
Myth 3: Private property rights are sacrosanct in our form of government.
Yes, private property rights are given significant protection by the Constitution. But are they sacrosanct? Not quite. And anyone who carefully considers the nature of private property rights in America eventually finds an unmistakable truth: A substantial component of the value of private property is created by government action. What would the value of a piece of private property be without the public investment in utilities, roads, parks, schools, fire departments, or police? Or without such regulations as building codes, zoning ordinances, environmental regulations, or traffic laws? The fact is that public property rights are inextricably intertwined with private property rights, and government creates a good portion of value by such things as land-use planning laws, zoning and building codes, and even historic preservation ordinances.
Myth 4: The founding fathers never intended us to regulate property this intensively.
Variations on this myth may include such statements as the
following: "A strict construction of the Constitution means historic preservation laws are unconstitutional;" or "The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to make protection of private property a preeminent right." This never was true and those who advocate that point of view just do not know their constitutional and political history.
Certainly, private property rights are important in our constitutional scheme. But the whole history of common law prior to the enactment of our Constitution recognizes that private property rights derive from the Crown--in other words from government. Remember, the land that formed the thirteen English colonies was claimed by the early explorers on behalf of the Crown. And it was the Crown that gave land grants, in fee or in lesser title, to the various mercantile and religious groups that settled the English colonies in the New World. Private property rights were derivative of government ownership of the land, at least in the New World.
Additionally, our Founding Fathers operated in a legal tradition that recognized the overreaching authority of the Crown to regulate private property rights for the public good in a variety of forms. The best summary of this English Common Law of land use is found in the book The Taking Issue, published in 1974 by the President's Council on Environmental Quality.
Thoughts from the constituional expert in the house (aka HV)?
Posted by: EVS | July 5, 2007 05:28 PM
"P.P.S. When/how have they restricted "who gets to live there"? If they did, they should've considered leaving you out...
Nice
Look up the long time Vienna residents, the Leggett Family and ask them for yourself.
Posted by: To EVS | July 5, 2007 05:28 PM
This site HAS NEVER Claimed that historic preservation is unconstitutional, nor has it EVER claimed that historic districts are also. But when you fail to actually have a real historic district, and as your reference points out:
Historic preservation, and the well-drafted historic preservation ordinance, is perfectly constitutional.
What is plain to see, is that the TOV has not done what they were told to to do when they were sued last time and lost, nor have they implemented any of the requirements they were told to do when they paid for expert advice from historic experts about a decade ago. Results: This district IS unconstitutional and just because they say they are following their laws, doesn't make it right.
I have lived in a real historic district that had homes that were over 200 years old, and preserving history and the old homes, streets, etc. was all accepted and demanded by all the homeowners. Vienna cannot be held to any such standard, because by its own inadequacies, nothing has been preserved. So, I say again, you are either ignorant or just pretending to be.
Posted by: To EVS | July 5, 2007 05:39 PM
High five EVS! You have now made points to fight arguments that no one here is making. Chewbacca 101. Would you like to reload your pea shooter and try again?
Hint: address the specifics here and you will be on your way to making sense and winning respect! Now on the other hand if you are just a lazy crank who doesn't want to think, still feel free to add your special kind of value.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | July 5, 2007 07:41 PM
myth1 myth2 myth3 myth4 -
blah blah blah blah
"Hey, I never claimed to be an expert on the law or the constitution" -
begin manifesto...
Posted by: Weeeeeeeee | July 5, 2007 08:08 PM
EVS you must be smarter than anyone here..so why engage?!
Posted by: sick of it | July 5, 2007 08:22 PM
EVS, get off your damned high horse! If I moved into Monticello or Mount Vernon, I would be the first one in line demanding that no one change anything about those structures, but if you think my house which happens to have been built in the 80's "historic", your a damned fool, and I certainly don't need a sot like Shirley Damon telling me what color I can paint my shutters, or Carey Seinicki telling me I have to use gray brick over brown brick, when everyone knows, there is absolutely no standard from whence they chose! I have been to enough meetings to see that it's who you know in this small town that counts, and that's why no one gets along. All this fighting and back-stabbing, I am at the point now, where I wished the town just be swallowed by Fairfax County for all the pompous arses that are running the show.
Posted by: Historic Preservation | July 6, 2007 12:27 AM
I laugh since I used to live in a house built in 1945 which has been virtually "untouched" over the years. The house is clearly older than most other homes in the historic district and it sits squarely in the middle of the district but is NOT part of the district having been removed about 15 years ago. Makes sense, eh?
I'm not an expert but it does seem that if you wanted to have guidelines listing how to properly preserve houses in the district, each house would have to use its own set of rules. The split level from the 70s would have to clearly state replacing with vinyl so as to keep a look of its era. The fake 80s Victorian could keep on with its San Francisco painted lady charm and kooky colors. The country farmhouse with clapboard siding would have another set of rules. The fake Frank Lloyd-esque 50s brick ramblers, the brand new HardiePlank McMansions, the Japanese teahouses - you get the point. It's comparing apples and oranges with no common ground amongst virtually any of the homes.
So, it leads me back to the same old question - why do we have a district if clearly there doesn't seem to be anything preserved, preserved properly, or even worth preserving? Whose purpose does it serve? The homeowners? Town Council? Historic Vienna, Inc? Who runs HVI? Who pays for HVI? Who makes decisions for HVI? It's all a circle - you see where I'm going.
Posted by: vienna mommy | July 6, 2007 09:32 AM
In a "real historic district" one is given a written set of guidelines to follow. This pertains to the color of the house, fence and any other outside structure. They even go so far as to include the outdoor light fixtures, and wattages of the bulb used. Too stringent for Vienna? Well even a homeowners association also has written material that is given out at time of sale. There is nothing here because there are no set guidelines just garden club whims.
Posted by: silly really | July 6, 2007 10:14 AM
I think folks are straying off topic. And HV - you DID state that the Council doesn't "obey the Constitution" and that you're fighting for Constitutional rights, so I thought I was making points against your claims. You can keep diverting with your Chewbacca nonsense and name calling. I think that makes you look like the moron here.
Still don't see how your "specifics" such as "color insanity, manipulation, nothing's historic, special treatement, no inventory," relate to violations of the Constituion. Special treatment (can you say "Scooter") and manipulation happen everyday within the law. I don't agree with it, but it's a fact of life that you should've learned about a long time ago.
Aren't you really saying the historic district and preservation ordinances aren't well crafted?
I agree that there are very few structures that are historic (did I ever say otherwise?) in the district, but isn't the town couching their defense of the district by claiming that they are preserving the district's "character", moreso than structures? Per the town code they want to preserve "neighborhoods" which reflect "lives of historic personages" and "social heritage", among other things.
Was the Leggett family denied the right to be a part of the district when the boundaries were originally (and terribly) drawn? Your statement made it sound as if all the new homeowners had to get permission from someone when they moved in their new homes in the existing district.
None of this matters anyway, does it? You'll just continue to call me names, make false claims, and blame "goober and gomer".
Posted by: EVS | July 6, 2007 11:07 AM
The last word is EVS's. If others want to battle this inane logic, be my guest.
Posted by: Historic Vienna | July 6, 2007 11:19 AM
preserving the district's "character", moreso than structures? Per the town code they want to preserve "neighborhoods" which reflect "lives of historic personages" and "social heritage", among other things.
This is quite silly. The preservation is of streets & trees if it is not of houses. Does our historic district exist just to keep no sidewalks, narrow streets & big trees? Then why bother with nitpicking a color of a fence or a shape of a window? It's already been stated, since there are no guidelines & every house is completely different, that the board just stands to dictate based upon personal preferences.
It's all nonsense.
Posted by: not-EVS | July 6, 2007 01:50 PM
HAS ANYONE EVER NOTICED THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE VOCALLY IN FAVOR OF ALLEGED AND UNAUTHENTICATED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION SO LONG AS IT'S NOT AT THEIR EXPENSE (ALL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS QUALIFY HERE), BUT WHEN IT COMES TO JUSTIFYING THE SPENDING OF OUR TAXES TO PRESERVE AN AUTHENTICATED (NATIONAL REGISTER) HISTORIC SITE (MOOREFIELD) THEY SAY AND VOLUNTEER LITTLE (INCLUDING THE TC) AS IT IS TORN DOWN, MOVED AND PARTIALLY STORED AS WELL AS REMOVED FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER?
Posted by: HISTORIC LIES | July 12, 2007 10:59 AM