Historic Preservation, Individual Property Rights & Public Policy Dear Cedar Key Residents: This past week, a City Commission workshop was held to review elements of the proposed revised Comprehensive Plan. During the workshop, the recurring debate occurred between the value of historic preservation and its effect upon individual property rights. It's an important issue, which requires serious consideration particularly for the future of Cedar Key, the second oldest city in the state of Florida. In the late 1980's, a group of citizen volunteers assembled the City's first Comprehensive Plan, and as part of the Comp Plan, a defined historic district was created. Twenty years ago folks believed that the history of Cedar Key was extremely important, and as stewards of that history, we needed to protect the City's historic resources. In April 2004, more than a hundred people attended a two-day visioning process beginning Florida's required update of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Those hundred folks broke out into twelve teams and created a list of goals for preserving the quality of life on the island for future generations. Nine out of the twelve teams listed expanding the City's historic district and preserving our historic resources as a priority goal. Now, after four years of workshops, hearings, drafts, revisions, and thousands of hours of meetings, a draft Comprehensive Plan has been presented to the City Commissioners. After careful analysis of the historic resources that are located on the island, a larger historic district has been proposed. There are approximately fifty "contributing historic structures" located in the existing historic district, and there are fifty-seven contributing historic structures located outside the existing historic district which would be included if the proposed historic district is expanded. This is why there's a debate between the value of historic resources and the private property rights of individuals. I believe that the City Commissioners must put aside their personal political opinions about individual property rights and do what is best for the future preservation of the history of Cedar Key and expand the historic district as recommended by the Planning Board and their consultants. There's a minority of property owners within the proposed expanded historic district who are opposed to the historic district expansion. The opponents of the historic district expansion do not want to be burdened by what they perceive to be additional restrictions on what they can and cannot do with their property. It's a common argument when zoning regulations are revised, and everyone understands the logic behind their concerns. However, from my perspective, it's more important to preserve the heritage of Cedar Key than to ignore the recommendations of the Planning Board, its consultants and the collective will of the rest of Cedar Key citizens. My partner and I own contributing historic structures that are presently located outside the existing historic district. We firmly support individual property rights, but in Cedar Key, we consider ourselves more than simply property owners. We're caretakers of important pieces of Cedar Key history. Oliver Miller, Barbara McJordan's daddy, built our little Cracker house for Granny Cooper who outlived three husbands and enjoyed Cedar Key for one hundred four years. Helen Johannesen plus numerous others lived in what we now refer to as "the Cooper cottage." Presently, we own the cottage, but one day we'll be gone, and it will be somebody else's responsibility to maintain and care for this little place. We feel the same about all the structures in Cedar Key. We're just passing through, using the resources and it's our responsibility to maintain and protect these treasures. When the 1990 Comprehensive Plan was drafted, our little house was not what's considered to be a contributing historic structure. It was rebuilt after the hurricane of 1950, and thus in 1990, it was only forty years old. The Cooper cottage wasn't classified as historically important because it was less than fifty years old. It was important to us when we bought and renovated it in 1991-93. Now, the cottage is fifty-eight years old, and others agree that it's historically significant, and its been classified as such. Structures that have recently been built will one day become historically important artifacts. Time has a way of doing that to everything. Eighteen years ago, the inventory of historically contributing structures on the island totaled approximately sixty structures, and now the historic experts believe there's more than one hundred. When we revise the Comp Plan in 2029, no doubt there'll be many more structures that will be considered historically important. I'll wager that in 2029, folks will feel that it's important that we expand the historic district again. It's inevitable. We need strong willed City Commissioners who understand that preserving the history of Cedar Key far outweighs the shortsighted complaints of a few vocal property owners who fear that the inclusion of their property in an expanded historic district is not worth the slight imposition of some regulatory oversight that will help insure the protection of our island's heritage. Too often at City Commission meetings only the vocal opponents of pending proposals are present, and to the Commissioners, their opposition can erroneously appear to be the will of the majority. Unfortunately, those favoring a pending policy seldom express their support nor attend the meetings where final decisions are made. Later, the proponents are surprised and discouraged when they learn that good public policy was defeated at the eleventh hour. If you agree with this opinion, please tell the City Commissioners how you feel. We need to remind our elected officials that we want them to follow the goals outlined during the 2004 visioning process. Some Commissioners did not participate in that planning session. They may not understand or value how important this issue is to many of us who seldom express our views publicly. Two Commissioners have stated their personal support of individual property rights and indicated that they'll vote against expanding the historic district because of those personal beliefs. They should hear how you feel about their limited historical perspective and misplaced alligences.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dwyer | 