In the interest of public trust: the Craig property, et al.

It's simple, really. People invest where they have confidence that their investment will pay off. Creating that confidence, then, is the lifeblood of economic or social success. Trust is necessary.

The same is true whether one is starting or taking a job at a company, purchasing a house or commercial building, or even campaigning or voting for a politician. There are risks involved in any of them, and buying in means assuming those risks. When the playing field is level and the rules clear, caveat emptor and may the best person win.

Lately, numerous new people have invested millions of dollars and ample time in our small city, in all the areas mentioned - housing, commercial buildings, businesses, and politicians. That's a good thing, as it shows they share the type of confidence implicit in making life changing decisions.

Many of us developed that confidence and made those decisions based on the idea that the rules in place to protect us - building codes, historic preservation guidelines, voting rights, etc., would be evenly enforced. We agreed to them, knowing that whatever limits were placed on us would be shared by others, creating a hopeful if difficult consistency. It's the essence of the social contract.

Well, so much for contracts.

Most are aware of the Market Street properties owned by Ron Craig. Defined mostly by the former auto dealership between Fourth and Fifth Streets, the American four square house on the site is recognizable without an address, owing to the junk cars that regularly populate the adjacent lot unabated. It sits in the Downtown Historic District, regulated by the same exterior rules that apply to my house and the properties of many others.

Of what most are probably unaware is the controversy in which the home is in engulfed. Its owner, Ron Craig, is aware of his property's historic status and the related rules. Mr. Craig, however, assumes those rules don't apply to him. Unfortunately, the City is proving him right.

Without so much as even applying for the Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission required by everyone doing exterior renovation in designated districts, Mr. Craig wrapped the place in gaudy white vinyl, covering up the homes architectural features and further degrading (to the extent possible, given his general neglect of the property) the streetscape that we all share and depend on to lend itself to our own investments.

When notified of the violation by the HPC, Mr. Craig's first response was to sue. Though not surprising given his general attitude, the suit was both troublesome and timely. Troublesome because of the lack of respect for the law, it was timely because of ongoing conversations between the HPC and the City's attorney, Shane Gibson.

That conversation had focused on the enforcement of several pending historic district cases, cases that involve clear violations of local law but that had not been followed up on through proper legal channels. The HPC was asked to suggest the four most prominent of those cases for further review and, if necessary, enforcement action. It seemed like potentially good news.

The conversation, however, quickly moved from the selection of four cases to the selection of one, as an example. Given the pending lawsuit and the obvious visual prominence of the property on a major thoroughfare, Craig's case was recommended.

With Craig's suit already in motion, it was the attorney Gibson's responsibility then to respond to the court with the City's position prior to deadline. He did not. The HPC reminded him. He still did not.

Eventually, the deadline passed. Having been denied the opportunity to even present arguments as an officially recognized city body, the HPC is currently monitoring the court docket, waiting for notification of the summary judgment that will be forthcoming without further intervention. HPC calls to Gibson pertaining to the case continue to go unreturned.

Given the zeal with which enforcement was promised to my neighborhood and others as a matter of creating the trust necessary for political investment into this administration, it's tempting to point fingers, call names, and otherwise frame recent events into an even more polarized us vs. them situation. For now, I won't do that.

What I will do is ask for an explanation, with the hope that it doesn't become a demand due to another lack of response. The system is clearly failing and will not be fixed in silence. Citizens have invested themselves and their money in the city and its current administration, but the confidence and trust necessary for that to continue is waning as the individuals on the other side of the contract ply their craft in relative isolation with little to no communication. With hundreds of dilapidated properties to contend with, City Hall is the one getting boarded up. That's not acceptable.

As a single broken but unrepaired window leads to more, a lack of windows into the process leads to vision unshared. If we can't see what's happening, we can't help.

We've been asked to trust you. How about trusting us every once in a while?