Report a Comment

I will disagree with Lance about the placement of Historic Preservation Office within the Office of Planning. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than in DCRA.

Historic Preservation is a planning tool. That move (was that even a Fenty move, or was that a Williams move?) is consistent with most leading jurisdictions. Under DCRA supervision, the Historic Preservation Office endured a series of mis-steps which, for the most part, have been avoided under the current system. Yes, the permit process isn't perfect, but having a staffer at the HPO desk at DCRA for the quick reviews has made things MUCH better for the average DC resident, who can get their plans reviewed and approved by this deck on the spot. I believe over 95% of permit applications are approved by the HPO at the DCRA desk, often in a matter of minutes - certainly far more efficient than other permit requirements such as soils review, or the trades (electrical, plumbing, etc.)

At the end of the day, though, the current alignment works better for a host of reasons. Does Lance seriously suggest that the HPO is better suited under DCRA? If so, why? Or, where else should it be within the governmental flow chart?

I will also disagree with Lance about the Office of Planning process for the Comprehensive Plan update. There were city wide meetings, ward-wide meetings, neighborhood meetings and then specific working group meetings. There was also the ability to participate via on-line and email measures. So there was a lot of feedback at every step of the way. This conspiracy theory suggesting hand-picked crowds dictating policy is laughable, at best.

Actually, by my recollection, every working group had open calls for participation and were well attended by a variety of citizens and stakeholders with differing opinions, views and input.

by Andrew on Jul 23, 2010 6:29 am • link • report