Historic district proposal pits neighbor vs. neighbor.

Byline: Susan Palmer The Register-Guard

Solomon himself would have been perplexed by this one. Neighbors in the south university area love their community so much they've gone to war over it.

One faction thinks the area is so attractive and steeped in local history that it deserves to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and protected as a historic district.

The other faction believes that the designation would put a straitjacket on property owners, limiting their ability to remodel or alter their properties as they see fit. Most property owners are doing a good job maintaining the area's character, they say, and since it isn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed.

The dispute goes back to the early 1980s when south university neighborhood residents first sought historic district status. Back then, opponents raised such a ruckus that supporters withdrew the nomination for the sake of neighborhood peace.

But with more recent efforts, neither side has been willing to give in and even a mediator brought in last year by the city to help residents identify common ground concluded that there wasn't any.

"This issue has polarized the neighborhood," said Gary Warren, a south university resident who opposes the listing.

"I don't mind people not agreeing, but I just want it to be civil," said Janet Heinonen, whose mother organized the 1980s effort and who has been involved in the recent push to create a historic district.

In the latest skirmish, some opponents went so far as to divide ownership of their properties in order to lengthen the list of property owners objecting to the nomination.

Their tactics have had an effect. The keeper of the National Register of Historic Places notified neighbors in late November that their nomination, submitted in August, will be returned for more work.

While that's not an outright rejection, one may be waiting in the wings. A majority of property owners have submitted protest letters, which could effectively kill the nomination.

Drive the seemingly tranquil streets of south university and it's easy to see what the fuss is all about. Large, stately homes and cozy bungalows tucked among graceful trees and mature gardens comprise this corner of town. From 18th Avenue south to 23rd and from Agate Street west to Alder, South University's proximity to stores, cafes, parks, schools and the University of Oregon make it a walking neighborhood, a place where couples raise their children, where the kids grow up and move into nearby homes to raise their own families not far from grandma and grandpa.

It's like something out of a 1940s Jimmy Stewart movie and lots of people would like to keep it that way.

Supporters of a historic district fear that their neighborhood's old homes slowly will get run down and give way to absentee landlords who tear down history and throw up ugly concrete apartment complexes. They point to the nearby west university area, which was once dominated by owner-occupied single-family homes and gave way to rental housing and apartment complexes.

Supporters in the south university neighborhood hope the National Register of Historic Places will help keep that from happening.

In 1999, Everett and Sally Smith were among the property owners working for the listing, sending out notices to property owners to assess interest and doing the historical research that would back up their nomination.

There was plenty of history to be had. The oldest homes in the neighborhood date back to the 1880s, with a variety of architectural styles being built up through the 1950s. And it wasn't just the structures, but the people who lived in them that added interest.

Former U.S. Sen. Wayne Morse lived there while he was a UO law professor, as did anthropologist Luther Cressman, Margaret Mead's first husband. Former Gov. Neil Goldschmidt, Albert Applegate, son of one of three brothers who founded the Applegate Trail, and former UO President Prince Lucien Campbell all lived there.

"We really felt it was a gift to the neighborhood," Sally Smith said of the nomination.

Smith's neighbor, Gary Warren, was intrigued by the possibility when he first learned about it. He and his family had moved into the neighborhood in 1991, buying a 1926 Craftsman-style home with a wraparound porch.

"We love living in an old house in an old neighborhood," he said.

Warren donated money early on to help with the historical survey of homes, but that was before he learned what the local impact of such a designation would be.

In most places, listing on the National Historic Register is an honorary thing. It brings bragging rights, the potential for federal and state tax breaks, and some protection from federally funded projects that could have a negative impact.

But in Oregon, the listing triggers local rules. If property owners want to remodel, add on, move or demolish historic structures, they have to get permission from a city planner first.

And that's where the trouble began.

People who wanted the historic listing said local regulations were more advisory than restrictive, and that no city planners had ever rejected any homeowner projects in the city's other two historic districts.

But other residents looked at the city's guidelines and came to a different conclusion.

In the summer of 2001, the city provided neighbors with a draft copy of guidelines specific to south university that spelled out some design requirements. The 38-page booklet was still a work in progress, a fact indicated by a note on the second page inviting comments and suggestions. But it scared people.

While Warren didn't have any plans to alter his own home, his daughter lived nearby and she did. The guidelines flatly said that the type of two-story addition his daughter wanted wouldn't be compatible with the historic district.

When he and others went to the city code governing historic district guidelines, they found vague standards requiring property owners to retain the historic character of their homes, but no concrete rules explaining what was allowed and what wasn't.

Could you or couldn't you swap out wooden single pane windows with vinyl double panes?

The city code didn't say. The city has since withdrawn the draft guidelines in favor or a more generic version, but the regulatory overlay still concerns some residents.

Also galling to some: City code for historic districts required neighbors within 300 feet of their homes be notified of any planned alterations, or that anyone who felt negatively impacted by a proposed alteration could appeal it.

Supporters of the district said the vagueness of the rules would allow the city staff to work flexibly with homeowners. They pointed out that no alteration decisions had ever been appealed, and that city planners were, in effect, offering design assistance rather than regulations.

Opponents don't see it that way. They believe that the city's code could allow capricious officials to block projects they don't like.

"The guidelines lit a match to several outspoken people," Smith said. "They didn't work to change the guidelines. They worked to destroy the nomination."

Jim and Ginevra Ralph were among the most vocal opponents. The founders of Shedd Institute for the Arts had been concerned about the implications of the proposed historic district. The more they learned, the less they liked.

"It created this weird situation where although a district has many individual property owners, it's treated as a single entity," Jim Ralph said. With the additional layer of local regulation, the balance of public good vs. individual property rights seemed out of kilter, he said.

But the Ralphs and others who opposed the listing soon learned that blocking it wouldn't be easy. The federal government assumes that property owners in a nominated district support the listing. To prove otherwise, a majority of property owners must send in notarized letters of objection to Washington.

At one point, the Ralphs hired a notary public to go door-to-door in the neighborhood to accommodate property owners who wanted to object.

And they went over the nomination carefully, writing a lengthy report that pointed out discrepancies in the documentation and raised questions about the boundaries. With the help of a law firm, they raised objections about the caliber of the nomination. They even went to the state legislature, proposing a law that would allow neighbors to opt out of historic districts. That effort failed.

Each side accuses the other of not abiding by the spirit of the law.

When the national keeper of the register sent the nomination back in 2002 and instructed supporters to drum up more community support, opponents say they reviewed the objections and weeded out those who no longer owned property within the proposed district.

"They did nothing to build local support," said Jim Ralph. "Instead, they tore down opposition and they nominated it again."

Supporters for their part are outraged about the most recent tactic: This year, the Ralphs and one other homeowner divided their property up into trusts with multiple owners, giving them as many as 20 more opposition votes in their effort to block the nomination.

And that's what happened.

In late November, Paul Lusignan, a historian with the National Register of Historic Places, informed supporters that the nomination would be returned to Oregon for further work.

Review of the historic documentation uncovered problems. Beyond that, Lusignan has received enough letters of opposition to preclude listing of the district in the National Register. But that decision hasn't been formally made.

"It's still an open case," said Roger Roper, preservation program manager at the state Historic Preservation office. Questions about the district's boundaries and the accuracy of property descriptions raised flags.

"They're playing it safe back there, knowing it's controversial," he said.

The current setback frustrates supporters, who say the inaccuracies reflect neighborhood changes since the nomination was first crafted.

"This is exactly why you want a historic district," said Bob Peters, a retired attorney and supporter.

But Warren sees a still vibrant neighborhood where people without rules are keeping their homes attractive.

"I've walked our neighborhood, and I see renewal, not regression. The properties seem to be increasing in value," he said.

The one thing many people agree on: Oregon's peculiar regulations are partly to blame for the controversy.

"Most states don't link local statutes to the National Register," said Janice Rutherford, a University of Oregon assistant professor in the School of Architecture and Allied Arts, who has researched the south university neighborhood dispute. "In Oregon, you can arguably see the nomination as restrictive."

What's next for the nomination is uncertain.

Supporters could address the boundary and property questions raised and resubmit the application, said supporter Janet Heinonen. The objection letters would keep it from being listed, but the keeper would formally note that the neighborhood possesses the characteristics that make it eligible for listing. All the historic information gathered would be kept in one place.

Whether supporters will have the heart for it is another question.

"It's hard for people to even want to talk about it," Smith said. "I don't know how good the opposition feels, but among us it is just a deep sadness and disillusionment."

HISTORY ON DISPLAY

The south university neighborhood is notable for its variety of historic styles, from grand mansions to humble bungalows. Some structures date back more than 100 years. In October, supporters of the historic district created signs describing the past of about 60 homes in the area and placed them in their yards. Here's a sampling:

Boyer House: 1138 East 22nd Ave. Replica of the Governor's Mansion in Williamsburg, Va., in the Colonial Revival style. Built in 1927 for $9,000 for C.V. Boyer, who was head of the UO English Department in 1925 and appointed president of the university in 1934.

McMurry home: 930 East 21st Ave: The oldest in the neighborhood, built in about 1885 for James Scott McMurry, son of Fielding McMurry, a local farmer. The Gothic Vernacular structure was moved to 930 E. 21st in about 1910 from 2335 Alder.

Bungalow: 2077 Onyx St. Built in 1912 and wired for electricity in 1914, the single-story Craftsman home with a low-pitched gable roof was restored recently. In 1916, it sold for $1,000.

More information: Visit the proponents Web site: www.suhd.net

CAPTION(S):

Proponents of a south university neighborhood historic district placed signs in some yards describing features and history of the houses.