BEWARE DISTRICT’S IMPACT ON HIGHER HOUSING COSTS
I am the owner of The Flame, a building in Hillcrest prominently featured in a photograph in the Aug. 21 edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune with an article about the possibility of creating an LGBTQ+ Historic District. And just for the record, I am gay. Now to the substance of the issue.
The idea of a dedicated district with imposed and potentially rigid limitations seems antithetical to the theme of inclusiveness. There is nothing inherently historic about homosexuality or Hillcrest. Is there even such a thing as gay architecture? In contemporary America, gay is no longer unique and is headed towards being viewed as nothing more than “some of my best friends are ... . ” After years of discrimination, we as a group are moving toward being mainstreamed, which is a welcome change.
When I purchased the building, it had been empty for many years and was in terrible condition. I battled the forces of the city establishment and others and eventually was able to redevelop the property with six rental units and some ground-floor retail.
I was committed to preserving the façade and the neon sign, which are landmarks in the neighborhood. I was able to do that.
I am also the owner of the Egyptian Court Apartments next door on Park Boulevard. In 1989, I received an Orchid award for the historic restoration of that building. The previous owner of that building had trashed most of the historic façade. Slowly, with the help of community members who had gathered up some of the old pieces, I was able to restore it to most of its prior glory.
I also own a historically designated home. I care deeply about appropriate historic preservation.
I am a native San Diegan, and I have been an investor in Hillcrest since the beginning of my career in real estate. As a gay man, I am repulsed at the idea of singling out LGBTQ+ people for a thematic district. That is merely code for a committee to be formed that would dictate design and redevelopment as members believe, in their opinion.
When I was in the process of entitling the redevelopment of The Flame, I was held up for nine months by the San Diego Historical Resources Board because my historic property report did not, in the board's opinion, properly capture the “gayness” of The Flame that had operated as a supper club prior to becoming a women's gay bar. Furthermore, it became apparent that the board had scant interest in the seeing the property rehabilitated. I suggested that not allowing me to rehabilitate the property and add needed rental units might result in the property remaining in its then-rundown and fallow condition. It didn't make things move any faster.
I have heard and read so many times that the city of San Diego desires infill development, as well as adaptive reuse of significant historic buildings. The attitudes I encountered while trying to entitle my project were quite the opposite. I was discouraged at every step of the process. It is always ironic to me that people who have no money at risk and no skin in the game seem to have the loudest voices, often believing they have the right to dictate to owners what they can and cannot do with their property.
I agree with Benjamin Nicholls, executive director of the Hillcrest Business Association who told the Union-Tribune he was skeptical of this blueprint, which could actually hurt efforts to improve the neighborhood. Ultimately, this adds more costs and delays to the development and building of needed housing.
Implementing the LGBTQ+ thematic district is a bad idea. The adoption will cause unintended consequences that would negatively impact the cost of housing in Hillcrest. If there is a desire to honor a particular location in Hillcrest regarding its importance historically in the gay community, how about a plaque rather than preserving a building of dubious historicity?
The city of San Diego needs fewer barriers to infill development, not more.
If there is a desire to honor a particular location in Hillcrest regarding its importance historically in the gay community, how about a plaque rather than preserving a building of dubious historicity?