Friday, November 18, 2016

Last Night's Planning Commission Meeting - The Other Place In Town

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The meeting ended at 11PM, but they really did save their best for last. The Planning Commission's speculations on how best to punish malefactors, such as the dude that did in the historic Henry A. Darling place, made for some pretty entertaining conversation. And it did show the direction they're heading in.

There were three proposed possible penalties for demolishing a legacy house illegally that I thought would work. Of course, they might have been tongue-in-cheek, but who knows? I am far too serious an individual to be able to tell the difference. And they certainly would fit the crime.

1) Force any such perpetrator(s) to wear an orange jump suit and pick up trash alongside the 210 Freeway for 6 months.

2) Spend some quality time in the old city hall lock up. Sierra Madre's only existing prison cell is currently a bed and breakfast, though I am sure appropriate arrangements could be made.

3) Get in touch with the District Attorney and throw the book at any offenders. A really big one.

No final conclusions were arrived at, and the Planning Commission will be picking up the matter again soon. There just wasn't enough time to get things completely done.

The commissioners will also be dealing specifically with the guy responsible for the E. Mira Monte massacre soon, but they will only be able to do so under city regulations as they exist now. It will still be must see TV for sure.

Maybe they could make him spend the winter in the Henry A. Darling house? In its present state? Throw in an old Albertson's shopping cart and a blue tarp and the picture would be complete.

Along with a campfire. There certainly is plenty of kindling.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

28 comments:

  1. They shouldn't have demolished it but the HD house isn't historic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not correct in my opinion. The age, design and architecture of the place would give it an historic aspect. It's not like George Washington has to sleep in a place to make it historic. Another question that has come up is who was the architect of this place? Who was the builder? How do we know they weren't responsible for other houses of this style and era that have already been declared historic? Nobody has done that research.

      Delete
    2. The HD house was historic, now it's historic in that it will only be a memory as it's once beautiful self has been destroyed.

      Delete
    3. The fact that, in the past hundred years, no one has bothered to research who the architect or builder was underscores that the house wasn't historic. But it was a relatively honorable execution of the arts and crafts style that deserved a better fate than being razed by losers.

      Delete
    4. I have been told that Henry Darling was the builder of the house along with another one on the ame street. Both houses were built on spec and I believe Henry died before they were occupied. That being said, not every house in this city is historic. Most houses do not have beautiful wood work, design or other architectural features that this house had. The fact that no one special lived in this house does not lessen its historical capacity. We will never know because no one got the proper survey done. The world is used to liars. The man who bought this house said he wanted to maintain the houses dignity. He lied!

      Delete
    5. There was a survey done, Judy Webb-Martin is trying to get a copy t give to the planning commission.

      Delete
    6. The fact that no one historic lived there does lessen its historical capacity.

      Delete
  2. In my opinion with that criteria, every house built in town is historic! Who's to say that George Washington didn't stop by each home for a cup of coffee, on his way to the Potomac?
    and who's to say, nothing historically happened "here"; it's just an older home that was in desperate need of repair?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was at the meeting only about 10 people where there and most were regulars who go to meeting all the time not much of a turnout

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were a lot of emails. though. John Hutt spoke about that. Some people don't like to go down to City Hall and sit there for 5 hours. Doesn't mean they don't care.

      Delete
  4. I was there as long as my deferred dinner would let me (thank you In and Out at 11 p.m. Geeze) Anyway, you have to marshal your forces and spread out attendance or else you burn out. I hadn't been to a meeting in a long time. It was my turn. You next!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, 8:44. We need to take turns. Jobs and kids have their demands, too.

      Delete
  5. Very true 6:52. Why was it the last item on last nights list. I think the Planning Commission is working hard at doing a good job for our community and by the law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the Planning Commission recognizes that this is much more than a one meeting item. When this shows up first on the agenda list then we'll know the big moment has arrived.

      Delete
  6. I'm betting that the owner made a pretty penny on the small things in the destroyed house - the doorknobs, the light plates, all the little things you don't necessarily think of, bring good prices from restoration dealers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A regular scavenger hunt.

      Delete
    2. Sacked by Vandals.

      Delete
  7. The Planning Commission has always been responsible and well thought out with discussions on agenda, they also contribute histories of the town; most important, they listen to all speakers without a pre formed decision and even include points brought up by speakers.
    The City Council justs wants to be noticed. Ashame, as this branch of City Service holds the power and has the last say on an item.
    Most of the time they are not listening to each other and with their body language, you can tell that they knew which way their casting vote would be given. The speakers are ignored by the majority of the members, and yet they scratch their heads on the lack of attendance.
    The town needs to remain involved, otherwise homeowners can only blame themselves when it comes to how their taxes are spent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Despite the sadness of the destruction of the interior, that was never in dispute and didn't need a permit. The problem is they went way too far with the demolition of the exterior without proper permit.

      Delete
    2. There isn't much left, inside or out.

      Delete
  8. 12:47 pm. I hope your insight will be understood and accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Only 2 items on agenda. The first one took 2 1/2 hours. It was developing an emergency ordinance to bring our second unit in line with the State's mandate. They did a superb job of alining the changes needed with the best interests of the city given the requirements. Second item: the demolition ordinance. Given the limited circumstances with any current infractions, they are looking forward to keeping this from happening again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With Sacramento you need to be very careful.

      Delete
  10. let's all meet and discuss on Sunday at 8 am @ The Only Place in Town

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty of seats available.

      Delete
    2. Good idea. A crappy restaurant is the perfect place to discuss this. The Henry Darling House has become a total clusterfork.

      Delete