HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC1984-006 Information Go To Mike Dooley From Rose Law Firm 11/02/1984ROSE LAW FIRM
J. GASTON WILLIAMSON
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
RONALD M. CLARK
PHILLIP CARROLL
ATTORNEYS
GARLAND J. GARRETT
W. DANE CLAY
JERRY C. JONES
C. JOSEPH GIROIR, JR.
120 EAST FOURTH STREET
THOMASP.THRASH
GEORGE E. CAMPBELL
CAROL S. ARNOLD
HERBERT C. RULE, M
LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201
JACKSON FARROW JR.
STANLEY E. PRICE
TELEPHONE (501) 375-9131
LES R. BALEDGE
H. WATT GREGORY, III
JIM HUNTER BIRCH
W. WILSON JONES
TELECO PIER (501) 375-1309
R. DAVIS THOMAS, JR.
VIN CENT FOSTER, JR.
--�
DAVID L. WILLIAMS
ALLEN W. BIRD II
U. M. ROSE
CATHERINE LASSITER
WILLIAM E. BISHOP
1834-1913
RICHARD T. DONOVAN
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
MICHAEL R. JOHNS
C. BRANTLY BUCK
MARTIN K. THOMAS
TIM BOE
SUSAN RALSTON McLEAN
M. JANE DICKEY
RICHARD N. MASSEY
WILLIAM H. KENNEDY, la
KENNETH R. SHEMIN
CHARLES W. BAKER
DAVID A. KNIGHT
November 2, 1984
OF COUNSEL
Mr. John Jarrard
1700 South Spring Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
Ms. Beth Foti
510'East Eighth Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
Gentlemen and Ms. Foti:
Mr. George Worthen
1716 Louisiana
Little Rock, AR 72206
Mr. Sam Strauss, Jr.
Post Office Box 2301
Little Rock, AR 72203
This letter is in reference to the Historic District
Commission meeting now scheduled for Thursday, November 8, 1984
at 4:00 p.m. I regret to state that I will miss this meeting,
as business will carry me out of Arkansas. I have a plane
flight landing in Little Rock at about 4:20 p.m., but I believe
I will arrive too late for this meeting.
As you are aware from the information previously
transmitted to you by Mike Dooley, the Historic District
Commission has been asked to address a request by a resident
living at 1000 Rock Street to demolish a structure next door at
1004 Rock Street. For the reasons set forth herein, I am
strongly opposed to this request.
First, as is so often the case with the matters that come
before the Commission, this request has precedential value. If
the Commission allows people to demolish structures simply
because they are in bad shape, it may be establishing a
precedent that will become most difficult to live with in the
future.
Second, I find the reasons stated by the applicant for
demolishing the structure to be not worthy of serious concern.
Essentially, the applicant indicates that the structure is in
bad shape. The remedy for this is to sell it or renovate it,
not to tear it down. I have wandered by the structure many
times, and I am aware that it is in less than good condition.
It is, however, eminently salvageable.
November 2, 1984
Page Two
Third, there are policy considerations in this request.
The Commission should not adopt a posture of not allowing any
structure to be torn down, but should allow such action only if
structures are clearly out -of -sync with the surrounding
neighborhood, are of no historical significance, and constitute
an eyesore, or, in the alternative, only in the case of
significant danger to the public welfare.
Fourth, Mike states in his letter that this structure has
an architectural significance of II and no historical
significance known. The architectural survey on which this
information is based does not, however, reflect results that
might be obtained by a determined and comprehensive search of
the history of this structure. It is entirely possible that
this structure has a material historical significance, waiting
to be uncovered.
Please excuse the length of this letter. I did wish,
however, that my thoughts be known by you as my fellow
Commissioners and hence this letter.
I am sorry that I will be unable to attend the meeting on
Thursday. Please excuse my absence.
Sincerely
4.
William H.
WHK/law
cc: Mr. Mike Dooley
yours,
Kennedy III