Park City Preservation Alliance Board Member Tanner Jessel to Council: Legislative Solutions from Other Cities Offer Solutions to Affordability Concerns for Historic Preservation in Parkridge's National Historic District

Park City Preservation Alliance board member Tanner Jessel addressed City Council at the postponed second reading of the ordinance designed to protect more of the Park City National Historic District with local historic overlay zoning able to regulate changes that threaten the historic character of the District, Knoxville's largest but least protected National Register of Historic Places District.  Below, video of Tanner Jessel's comments where he shared with council legislative solutions able to address concerns about affordability while still protecting Parkridge's Park City National Historic District against rapid changes.

Text of Tanner Jessel's remarks is below:


My name is Tanner Jessel. I have lived at 1026 Olive Street in Parkridge for 11 years.

• Parkridge seemed a great place to put down roots in 2007. I saw a neighborhood on the rise, not in decline. 
• The neighborhood is now facing rapid change. The time is now to protect what’s left of Park City National Historic District - really, the time was 6 months ago. 
• Today marks a forced reset of a multi-year, resident led process.
• I want to believe more time and discussion can unwind fears over costs and outcomes of historic overlay districts. 

Experience as an educator tells me not everyone can be reached, even with careful explanations.

To paraphrase Mayor Brown’s observation on outreach efforts for the overlay: “you could rent a plane and write it in the sky, and there would still be people who said they didn’t know.”

Parkridge needs tangible, defined goals and help to move forward.
Six months ago, resolution to the historic overlay issue in Parkridge was delayed for “further discussion.”

• Since then, there have been zero public meetings. 
• No public solicitation of input. 
• No mailers, no flyers. 
• No e-mail distribution list. 
• There have been closed-door, invitation-only meetings coordinated by the Mayor’s office. 

It is clear the constructive dialog promised by Mayor Rogero to fill the six months’ delay has not happened. 

• The delay has not been used productively. 
• Set to expire July 1, City Council’s emergency demolition moratorium “respectfully requests the City administration or Metropolitan Planning Commission to evaluate the current proposed overlay compared with overlays adopted by other municipalities, and to recommend how Council could address and modify the proposed overlay and impact upon the people and history of the area.” 

The Metropolitan Planning Commission has not done this work.

• MPC’s historic preservation expert was not included in invitation-only meetings the City Administration offered residents. 
• If the City Administration has done this work, their findings have not been shared.

But there are solutions here that can reflect well on everyone.
Independently, a group of neighbors and I formed the Park City Preservation Alliance to advocate for the built and cultural heritage of the area in and around historic Park City.

• We have spent the last 6 months looking at other cities 
• There are solutions that can work in Parkridge and we look forward to discussing options with Council members and the City Administration. 

A few examples:

• In Mobile Alabama- a Historic Homeowner maintenance fund with Community Development Block Grant funds offers up to $15,000 for roof replacement, paint, windows and exterior repairs 
• In Portland Oregon- a $300,000 Accessory Structure fund offers tiny homes for women and children on the verge of homelessness 
• This model could increase affordable housing density- 
• and save accessory structures recently noted by Knox Heritage as “Fragile and Fading” in Parkridge. 
• In Knoxville, Tennessee - a $500,000 Historic Preservation Fund
exists

•  $100,000 went to one developer for the redevelopment of a commercial building in Parkridge 
• The building is not in the National Register District; 
• It is eligible for preservation dollars ONLY due to OUR efforts to enact H-1 - it was a “property under consideration for an H-1 overlay.” 

The heart of our view is most residents never said they don’t want historic preservation.

• Rather; a major concern was if every one could afford:
• Fees for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and 
• Cost differences in materials that may be a few hundred dollars 
• Let me emphasize that again-- opposition stems from fears over costs to our low-income homeowners in the range of hundreds of dollars 
• At the same time the City awarded $100,000 in preservation funds to one developer 
• Residents got nothing. 

We agree with the City Administration that:

1. Preservation of our history and culture is important. 
2. Economic development within our older neighborhoods is important. 

If $100,000 were awarded to a “gap fund” for residents to cover cost differences or fees tied to historic preservation, we might not be discussing fears linked to historic preservation today.

It’s not too late to adjust the City’s developer-driven model for next year’s fund -- appropriating even a fraction of the Historic Preservation Fund as a direct investment in the people of East Knoxville, in the culture and history of Park City -- directly hits areas of wide agreement. 

• How many low-to-moderate income historic homeowners might a $100,000 “gap fund” help? 
• How many $25 “Certificate of Appropriateness” application fees could $100,000 cover? 
• Can Knoxville help historic homeowners, or is assistance only for developers? 

Other municipalities have solutions that can work in Knoxville. 

Even our own District 6 Council Rep, Gwen McKenzie, has said she can support historic overlay if assistance is in place for lower income stakeholders. Let’s make it happen in Knoxville! Thank you.