Design Review Based On False Premise

I am urging people to attend the June 26, 2012 Board of Supervisors hearing at 10:30 am.  What follows expands my main point and is similar to a prior commentary and one that appeared in another local venue.

The Design Review Ordinance now under consideration for Amador County is based on a completely false premise. It advocates preservation by limiting choices to what has already existed. This freezes or fossilizes the present.  A perfect example of this false premise is the design forced upon McDonald’s versus their proposed building. One can easily criticize their bland proposal, but it looks like 2012.  What is now being constructed is an inchoate hodgepodge of styles that lacks unity and what designers call the “integrity of design”.  But looking like 2012 will become the preserved past of future years. The false fronts of the gold rush era buildings were garish and phony. The 1920’s and 30’s bungalows in Jackson and elsewhere in the county were once considered decadent flights of fancy. The Golden Gate Bridge was vehemently opposed.  Environmental damage was feared by the Sierra Club.  One critic called the design “an an upside-down rat trap”.

Today the Golden Gate Bridge is the worldwide symbol of San Francisco. The Gold Rush false fronts and the later bungalows are now considered charming and beautiful.  Are we afraid to live in the present and therefore embrace the future?  What will Amador County look like, and feel like, in 50 years if everything built since 2012 is a rehashing of what was built in years prior?

The Design Review Ordinance will require that “Any addition, or remodel in excess of 10% of the total floor area of the existing structure…shall adhere to these guidelines.” This absolutely precludes boot strap free enterprise. What if an out of work person with exhausted unemployment benefits decides to risk his remaining savings by renting a building and seeing if his talents for lawn mower repair or whatever can produce an adequate income? Aren’t some of the “less than perfect” older homes on Hwy 88 in Pine Grove and elsewhere the perfect settings? Shouldn’t County Planning encourage this economic potential? Isn’t reusing these buildings “sustainable development”? Or are these older and poorly located homes just dilapidated structures to be eliminated with government subsidy as was once suggested? Can only more government regulation protect us from the unknown future with perhaps different looking buildings?

Why fear the future?  What is this darkness?  Why does this same attitude permeate the proposed General Plan?  Why does it contain every conceivable danger, inherent in life itself, as an obstacle or limitation? An obstacle or limitation is an opportunity for a solution given the American “can do” spirit. Can freedom of design and the American exuberance represented by the Giant Pencils at the former cedar mill in Pioneer ever exist again? On May 22, 2012 the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing about the Design Review Ordinance. It will continue on June 26, 2012. Be there and voice your opinion.