Preserving Grass Valley as a historic gem
Instead, the sound bite of “no more regulation” — so prevalent in politics now — carried the day.
Though a bitter pill to swallow, Grass Valley could have taken a cue from neighboring Nevada City, which has been blasted for strict planning for years but — frankly — enjoys more prestige as a “postcard-perfect” Sierra Foothills town.
A movie called “The Chirstmas Card” with Edward Asner was filmed in Nevada City, which has been good for business and civic pride. Visitors still mention it when they come into town.
Real estate values in downtown Nevada City neighborhoods are holding up better than their counterparts in Grass Valley too, for the most part.
There’s much potential for Grass Valley, and it has some real advantages over Nevada City — like flat streets for better walkability. And to be sure, we were proud to promote Grass Valley on the cover of our current magazine, promoting it as a “destination” in the foothills.
Grass Valley’s proposed historic preservation ordinance — sensible in addressing the fronts of homes, for example — reflected a pragmatic business mindset, not the creep of regulations by liberal “do-gooders.”
Grass Valley still suffers from a simplistic “all or none” view of “regulations” — much to its detriment. Some long-timers who spoke out against the ordinance grew up in the town, presumably making them more passionate about preservation.
The Council will tackle the issue again in July, but it’s likely to be watered-down guidelines. Whether you like it or not, most of the great historic towns in California and the West have more than “guidelines” supporting them — they have historic preservation ordinances.
Filed under: Uncategorized
The way the Nevada City planning commission used to operate colored the way the GV council (and at some residents) tend to think of historic preservation ordinances. I thought the folks who drafted the GV ordinance learned from NC’s “mistakes” and tried to make the GV ordinance easier to work with, with less arbitrary input from the planning commission. But, some of the old school anti-NH2020 types were too paranoid to accept it.
To their credit, the more recent Nevada City Planning commissions are revising the approval process for everything from tree removals, to sign applications, to historic or other remodels to make the process more understandable and reasonable.
Well said Brad.
I was very disappointed with Mayor Arbuckle’s lack of understanding and appreciation for our historical neighborhoods and districts. The ordinance(s) would not have added a huge and onerous obstacle to maintaining and remodeling of existing historical homes – it simply asked to RESPECT our history and community fabric when making changes or additions. Council member Cookson did a good job of outlining the choice and potential negative consequences, but found herself as the lone supporter. Howard Levine stepped up and gave numerous reasons to support the ordinance. Thank you Yolanda and Howard.
The issue seemed to important to be left to the three present council members? Did the other two have to recuse themselves because they live in historic houses?
Yes. Ironic, too, since sometimes you have to experience something directly to more fully understand it. This is where a newspaper plays a vital role, in educating a community. It would have been nice to read an in-depth analysis focusing on the very points being raised by Brad Croul.
In my opinion the current NC Planning Commission is not following the historic ordinance as they used to with detrimental results, but I guess I am a minority hardliner when it comes to historic preservation. The most blatent offense is the boardwalk on Commercial Street, nothing historic about that. When I was on the Planning Commission I voted against the hanging baskets…also not historic! (insert smiley)