Council Candidates Tackle Homeowner Issues

By Jorge Casuso

Oct. 21 -- City Council candidates Monday night took positions on one of the first major issues they will have to tackle if elected next month -- whether to adopt an initiative that would require an owner's permission before the City can designate a single family home as a landmark.

The nine candidates gave candid -- and sometimes surprising -- answers to this and other pressing questions facing homeowners in the city's upscale north side during a spirited forum sponsored by the North of Montana Neighborhood Association (NOMA).

The crowd of more than 50 residents who attended the forum at Franklin Elementary School sometimes cheered and jeered as the candidates fielded audience questions that covered everything from speed humps and second units in single family neighborhoods to budget priorities and the homeless.

But the critical questions centered on property rights issues, particularly the "Homeowners Freedom of Choice Initiative," which qualified last week for a special election next Spring with nearly 10,000 valid signatures. The rallying cry, as well as the groundswell of support, came from property owners North of Montana who fear their homes will be included a several proposed historic districts.

Incumbents Robert Holbrook and Pam O'Connor said they both would vote on November 12 to adopt the measure -- which also would require a homeowner's permission to designate the home as a structure of merit or include it in a historic district -- and avoid a costly special election. Holbrook, however, wants to first make sure that if the council, and not the voters, adopts the initiative it cannot be changed by future councils.

"I would vote to adopt the ordinance," said O'Connor, a historic preservationist who is seeking a third term on the council.

"I have signed the initiative," said Holbrook, who is seeking a fourth term.

Incumbent Kevin McKeown said that he opposes the measure, adding that he would like to see changes in the proposed initiative that would strike a balance between the rights of property owners and the need to preserve a neighborhood's quality of life.

"One of the most successful issues we have worked on is quality of life," said Mayor Pro Tem McKeown, a Green Party member who is seeking a second term. "Once we've lost that, it won't come back. We can't afford to make a mistake."

Asked for his position on the proposed initiative, McKeown said: "I think as written it's still flawed… What we have is a reaction. It's not necessarily the best answer."

All of the challengers said they would adopt the measure, except for Jerry Rubin, who agreed with McKeown.

"We need to give staff time to analyze this," said Rubin, who is making his second bid for the council. "There has been a lot of emotion. Any city is concerned about preserving its history. We're losing more and more everyday that goes by. People in this city want to protect our landmarks."

But the other five challengers disagreed, arguing that property owners should decide if their homes should be designated or included in historic districts.

"The City Council has no right to dictate what owners can do with their property," said Pro Se.

"I would vote for it," said Matteo Dinolfo, a North of Montana homeowner who added that it would save the City the cost of holding a special election. "It's a good initiative."

"I would vote for the initiative when it comes before the council," said Abby Arnold. "I don't think we should just come in and dictate that to people. When you want to do the smallest thing, you get a huge bureaucracy."

"I do believe in rights of homeowners to decide what they should do on their property," said Josefina Aranda. "It is a decision you have to make on your own."

"I worked my tail off" for the measure, said Chuck Allord, who is making his second council bid. "I find it interesting the council now says they would support it. This is about property rights, and the Landmarks Commission is out of control."

The candidates took equally strong positions on renting second units in single family neighborhoods, although the property rights argument failed to win favor among the crowd.

Allord said he has "a real problem restricting you from building" a second unit, but he cautioned that "we have to be very careful" to protect single family neighborhoods.

Aranda encouraged second units. "With the enormous need for housing, people are looking for places to live, places to rent out," she said. "I would certainly urge and support" the rental of second units.

"The cat's out of the bag," said Arnold. "There are many second units, and the fact is nobody rents out that space unless they really need the money and they would do it even if it's illegal. I would support it."

"This goes to the core issue of how you control your own property," said Dinolfo. "I support it. We as a city don't have the right to restrict what goes on our property."

Holbrook, however, opposed the rental of second units. "I will continue to fight to maintain (single family) districts, and I don't think we should have rental units in those areas."

"Single family neighborhoods are rare," said O'Connor. "Speculators could come in and build second units. There are ways that we can do limits."

McKeown noted that the courts had struck down as discriminatory a City ordinance that restricted renting second units to family members and caretakers. He advocated looking for other "tools" to restrict second units.

"The lawsuit has taken away the discretion we have," McKeown said. "We're in a bind, but we're not without tools. Do we overtax the infrastructure? We need to look at zoning issues to restrict second units."

While questions about the homeless, school funding, budget priorities and election reform all elicited previous responses at a half dozen other forums, "traffic calming" measures brought out some stormy opinions from the challengers.

"I hate the speed bumps," said Dinolfo. "They impede traffic and public safety (vehicles). I would support removing those speed bumps within a year."

"I hate the speed bumps," echoed Arnold. "I wanted to run to bring more sanity to the way neighborhoods barricade themselves. I may personally go and chop down that 'no right turn' sign at Trader Joe's."

Aranda said she had mixed feelings about speed humps, saying their location should be carefully chosen. "Speed humps slowed down drive by shootings," said Aranda, who lives in the crime-riddled Pico Neighborhood. "It would make no sense to have them around convalescent homes."

"I'm against these damn things," Allord said. "We already have traffic calming. It's called too many cars on our streets."

"We don't need no stinking speed bumps," Pro Se said. "Traffic calming doesn't work."

Rubin said he opposed all traffic calming measures. "I'm opposed to speed bumps, speed humps, traffic circles, traffic islands. It's another accident ready to happen. You need to have the main traffic routes open."

But the three incumbents were less willing to simply dismiss the measures.

"We really have to think about what we are doing," Holbrook said. "I'm not in favor of curb extensions either. We as a city have to review these things."

"This is not an easy question, and there are no easy answers," O'Connor said. "Where are the tools appropriate? Where are the streets that need to be moving."