Letter to the Editor: Look For Similar Similarities When It Comes To Flagstaff’s Growth Letters

In a March 2, 2021 statement, “Chamber Believes Housing Improvement With Supply,” Author Tyler Denham makes several false claims about Flagstaff’s historic preservation. Mr Denham falsely writes: “The 2007 historic city overlay prohibits development on 63 acres in the heart of Flagstaff.”

Development in Flagstaff’s historic district is not prohibited. it happens all the time. The historical overlay zoning only requires that the new development is compatible in scope and aesthetics with the existing historical context.

Not only are these protective measures not prohibiting development, they are also sensible and a very good idea. Discordant, visually obnoxious buildings that ignore their neighbors are terrible for cities, regardless of whether they were built in historical or non-historical areas. In Flagstaff, the city’s historic character is one of the main drivers of economic growth. That’s why people and companies want to be in Flagstaff. Destroying or endangering this character with unregulated, incompatible development is not in the best interests of the city.

It has been shown to be consistent and quantifiable that maintaining real estate increases property value, increases jobs, helps small businesses, and increases tax revenues. As a representative of the Arizona Preservation Foundation, I would like to share numerous studies showing such benefits. Conservation should never be confused with purely restrictive zoning measures or misunderstood as anything other than engaging in the positive act of placemaking.