Those that have read my other pieces probably know that I am running for elected office (Geneva’s 1st Ward). Those same people would also know that I am uncomfortable with self-promotion. Thankfully the process had been more enjoyable than I had expected (at least to this point).
I am humbled and appreciative of the outpouring of support by friends, strangers and merchants. ... and I even received the first formal newspaper endorsement. Even the most vitriolic attack against me was so far off the radar that I found it amusing. The candidate meet-and-greet events have been well-attended and I have had wonderful, substantive conversations with proponents and detractors. If for no other reason than some of my unvarnished positions on controversial and divisive issues; I know I have detractors (though I don’t bump into them often). One of those meet-and-greet conversations with an aspiring detractor, referencing my writings on those aforementioned issues, included “I really want to dislike you ... but you are so well reasoned!” I could hope for no higher praise!
And then it happened!!!! I made a public misstatement!!! AAAAAGGGGHHH!! My opponent, being affiliated with Geneva’s Ace Hardware (a critical resource if you are a do-it-yourselfer with an old house), claimed that the store couldn’t update their sign because they were in the Historic District and it would cost them $600 to do so. I claimed that it was NOT in the Historic District. I was wrong.
Find out what's happening in Genevafor free with the latest updates from Patch.
For the first time this campaign, I lost sleep. Though unintended, I felt I had somehow compromised my integrity. It is my goal that, if I state something as being fact, then it should be fact.
So how could I get this wrong given my long tenure on the Historic Preservation Commission?
Find out what's happening in Genevafor free with the latest updates from Patch.
In the way of background, back in 1979, Geneva established its first Historic District roughly bounded by River Lane, Sixth Street, South Street and the alley behind the older State Street buildings. This nationally registered district did NOT include the Ace Hardware property. In 1982, we established our second nationally registered historic district north of State Street roughly bounded by Stevens Street, State Street, Sixth Street and the west riverbank. This district ALSO did NOT include the Ace Hardware property specifically navigating around it and several nearby properties. In 1987 the city decided to smooth the boundaries, fill in the little gaps and finally defined our present Historic District and set the boundaries at Stevens Street to the north, the Union Pacific tracks to the south, the east riverbank and the [now removed] railroad spur adjacent to Seventh Street to the west. This refined boundary DOES include the Ace Hardware property. So...the fact is that Ace Hardware is in the historic district.
But being in the Historic District doesn’t automatically mean a building deserves historic treatment. The design of the Ace Hardware plaza was consistent with the [justly] maligned era of strip malls that seemed to offer lots of space at low cost...and too-often devoid of architectural interest. The Ace Hardware plaza embodies a “non-contributing” structure. I know of no one nor can I envision anyone defending the Ace Hardware plaza as something to protect on historical or municipal grounds. Our long term plan for downtown identified this as a property ripe for redevelopment with more mature and thoughtful municipal planning concepts should the opportunity arise.
Also, in my tenure, no project has ever come before the Historic Preservation Commission for this property...despite its undergoing frequent modifications and being in the boundaries of the Historic District. I know I am not alone on the commission in considering the property immaterial and [effectively] outside the district.
So...I was wrong on one of my facts and I must own that error. My apologies to the public and to my opponent on that specific matter...but the Ace issue was just an example.
My point, in using the example, stands. It is that my opponent seems to misunderstand the processes that property owners are involved in when seeking approvals from the city. He seems particularly critical of some aspects of Historic Preservation guidelines while having an objectively inaccurate understanding of those guidelines and related facts.
My opponent would characterize the process that Ace would have to go through as relating to the Historic District and costing $600.00. Both statements are incorrect. Of the two bodies that might have something to say on the signage (the Zoning Board or the Historic Preservation Commission), the Zoning Board only charges a $150 filing fee to cover legally required mailings and published notices. There is no fee associated with appearing before the Preservation Commission.
In conversing with city staff, I find that the central issue here is with sign code compliance. When the previous Ace Hardware/Geneva Hardware occupied the space, they had a non-compliant sign (it was bigger in square footage than ordinances allowed). It may have been grandfathered in or it might have been missed during code enforcement checks. When the present owners re-branded it back to Ace Hardware, the city gave them permission to install a non-compliant sign as long as it did not exceed the square footage of the previous non-compliant sign. The city was not obliged to allow a non-compliant sign but, given the building’s history, it seemed like a reasonable, business-friendly accommodation to allow making the sign at least as large as the previous. Thus the Ace issue had nothing to do with the Historic District.
After seeking out the facts in the case cited by my opponent; it actually seems the model of accommodation on the part of both sign code enforcement and Historic Preservation.
Now if my opponent is saying that sign ordinances are too restrictive, I would have to disagree. Restricting the size of signs is pretty standard and pretty necessary in a municipality. There are very few municipal retail districts in the country that have no sign ordinances. Times Square and [maybe] the Las Vegas strip come to mind. Obviously that wouldn’t work in Geneva’s cookbook. But are Geneva’s ordinances overly restrictive? No. They are not dissimilar from other communities and I support them.
I hope to have your support this April 9th.
Mike Bruno
