Same old story on new building codes

Current building codes on Main Street are sufficient (“City Council wrap-up,” Feb. 9). I abhor further restrictions to my and my neighbors’ rights to build or improve our homes simply because of a few vocals.

I am convinced that the proponents of change in this case are misguided. They seek to impose their standards on others without proper regard to the future. Nor do they give any credit to the automatic market forces that compel owners of these prime properties to build homes in keeping with the million-dollar values we see today. Further, they presume that developers are “bad” people and will build disgraceful eyesores. I can’t imagine how developers would sell such products.

Our Planning Department does a great job in the current design review process covering scale, design, privacy and height features. But looking to further codify style is not in keeping with their charter.

Simply, I believe that facts should carry more weight in this discussion than the belief that development is inherently bad. The codes already protect residents’ health and safety, which is the foremost role of government. The function of government is not to needlessly impose aesthetics on future generations. The options offered by the Planning Department are well intended but lack foresight. For example, proposed restrictions for building setbacks, story ratio, facade articulation and third-story elimination all act as design constraints that force the use of just currently popular designs. Such limits not only bar the future architectural offerings but limit designs that are in use elsewhere. These would bar centuries-old designs found in other countries like Great Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Japan and Switzerland. Even in the United States, the proposal would outlaw Southwestern Pueblo multistory with its characteristic box-like shape and flat roof. The same would be true for the Art Deco style. Any world traveler or student of architecture would appreciate these multistory designs developed well before and into the 20th Century.

Does the Planning Department wish to be one to decide forever the design parameters an architect may use in behalf of the property owner? Can you see how offensive such a position would be? I would not like to be the guy to tell Frank Lloyd Wright that the designs he used to build the Winslow, Martin, Heutley, and May residences are unacceptable. The same would be true of Joseph Eichler homes.

A final point, I disagree with the imposed 45-day building moratorium. These are frequently and easily extend to a year or more by fiat. It is simply punitive on government’s part.

ROD KUNISHIGE

Huntington Beach