Good News

Kudos to Mayor Mitch Landrieu, whose office released the following press release late today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 23, 2010

Contact:

Ryan Berni

504-658-4992 (office)

504-621-9504 (cell)

STATEMENT BY MAYOR LANDRIEU ON VA FOOTPRINT DEMOLITIONS

Mayor Mitch Landrieu released the following statement on the demolition of properties in the VA footprint: 

“Today, I have demanded that the state halt demolitions of historic properties in the VA footprint. They have agreed to temporarily halt demolitions of properties identified as historic by the State Historic Preservation Office.

“We have been, for some time, working on a process to move and bring back into commerce many of the homes in the neighborhood. It is possible to move these homes expeditiously and keep the VA hospital project on track.

“It is a huge undertaking and one that we are committed to getting done with the help of the state, its contractors, non-profit groups and other partners.”

###

It's good to see that the state, now that eight historic homes have been destroyed, has agreed to temporarily halt demolitions of properties in the VA Footprint identified as historic by the SHPO.

I'm curious, though, to see what that means.  One list of houses put out earlier by SHPO contained only single-story houses (those eligible for possible moving) - not all houses that were deemed structures contributing to the Mid-City National Register Historic District (a much larger list than the 40 or so on the SHPO list).  I trust that Landrieu is referring to the latter, more expansive list.

While I'd rather see the neighborhood left in place, I would prefer to see as many houses moved to other locations in Mid-City in the end if there is absolutely no way to avoid having the VA medical complex built in its inappropriate location.  This move by the Mayor, working in tandem with his 45-day review of the LSU site design, gives me hope that the city will end up with something at least marginally better than what would have otherwise emerged from the Nagin-era plans.

A Response to Mayor Landrieu

Watching Mayor Mitch Landrieu's recent remarks to the Preservation Resource Center, I couldn't help but notice, for all his reasonable observations, how flippant he was when it came to historic preservation in Lower Mid-City.

Go to about 4:40 on the video here.

"I don't think we oughtta tear down Charity Hospital building...That doesn't mean that we shouldn't build a new LSU hospital.  Now I know sometimes people are confusing those two things.  But one of 'ems about historic preservation and one of 'ems about medical care.  It doesn't have anything to do with the footprint that the new LSU hospital ought to be on - that can be part of urban design as well.  But we ought to be smart enough to figure out how to have that discussion...and not let that discussion get co-opted - and abused - by activists who are not interested in finding an answer, but are interested in pushing an agenda."

The Mayor states that he doesn't want to tear down the existing Charity Hospital building.  But he doesn't want to put the LSU hospital in that structure, as I've pointed out before.

And he's completely wrong when he tries to state that saving the existing Charity structure is the only relevant concern about historic preservation...while the destruction of hundreds of historic buildings in Lower Mid-City is somehow not about historic preservation, but about medical care alone.  That's a raw fallacy, and I don't see why the PRC membership in attendance deigned to give him a standing ovation.  Historic preservation concerns are inherently intertwined.

I know the Mayor, in slapping activists as hijacking the hospitals discussion, meant those opposed to the proposed hospital footprints in Lower Mid-City (many of whom supported a reasonable and feasible alternate plan to reduce the footprint by putting LSU back in Charity - a plan that was arguably faster, less expensive, and less destructive).  But his words could have applied just as easily to the LSU, VA, and New Orleans city government zealots that have pushed the current proposed hospital footprints forward at every step, despite the illogic of the moves, with near complete disregard for historic preservation (or, as we began to see this spring, private property rights).

Fear of activists co-opting a discussion is really just code for ensuring that his own underlying view on the matter - get the federal money above all else - prevails.  As with the fallout from his police chief task force, it demonstrates that he seems to have a problem with tolerating different viewpoints.

Money in Hand

The Times-Picayune takes a look, in both its news and editorial departments, at the hospitals situation post-arbitration.

This note wrapped up the end of the news article:

Some New Orleans mayoral and council candidates, meanwhile, say they support giving the state site to the VA, with the state rebuilding within Charity.


The question is whether any of those candidates, if elected, would actually vote to deny financing, street closures or relevant permits for the hospitals.

Having attended a few mayoral candidate meet-and-greets, I can say that frontrunner Mitch Landrieu stated explicitly one night at Le Phare that he does not support putting LSU's hospital back in the former Charity Hospital.  I thought he was about to salivate as he literally wagged his fingers as he noted the "two BILLION dollars" the new medical facilities in Lower Mid-City would bring to the city.

Republican longshot Rob Couhig, in an appearance at Elizabeth's, stated that he was supportive of the medical complex for its economic impact, but he was not married to a specific site.