The following letter was sent to the Pensacola City Council:
10/29/10
Dear City of Pensacola Councilmembers,
The City of Pensacola has once again failed to fully govern and protect our historic districts. Pensacola is âAmericaâs First Settlement,â yet the City provides our utility providers no apparent oversight or review in representation of historic district rights of ways. Historic districts that are blighted with excessive utility structures are diminished and tend not to draw as many tourist dollars for our entire community.
I recently sent a report (attached) dated October 15th, 2010 to the City of Pensacola citing two North Hill locations (1008 and 1010 N. Reus St.) that have had the presence of âdouble light polesâ for well over a year. A utility puts in a new light pole, but fails to remove the old one until brought to their attention. In this case, the owning utility, Gulf Power, admitted to âmessing upâ by failing to notify other utilities to move their equipment to the new pole so the old one may be removed (utilities share use of light poles). It is reasonable for this to take a month or two to coordinate before the old pole is removed. This is reasonable and fair. What is unreasonable and unfair for our historic districts are timelines greater than six months and in some cases over a year. The inescapable message from the utility is: âwe donât care.â
What is also unreasonable and unfair is for the City of Pensacola to demonstrate a laissez-faire attitude on this issue toward the utility companies and thereby relinquish governmental oversight of our historic districts.
The question that has yet to be answered is: when will the city of Pensacola start governing and reviewing utility installations on district rights of ways in accordance with our existing Land Development Code? Architectural Review Boardâs (ARB) already have oversight of rights of ways in many other Florida historic districts, such as those on Orlando, Ft. Pierce, Miami, Jacksonville, etc.
Gulf Power admitted to erring on these two sites. In light of this mistake, I became curious and wondered what other âdouble utility poleâ sites existed on our North Hill rights of ways? The following fourteen pictures were taken on October 17th, 2010 and are attached as documentation (please note I did my best to accurately represent their street addresses). There are also six additional âdouble utility poleâ sites, but as these replacement poles are clearly new, I did not include pictures out of fairness to Gulf Power or to whomever they belong. Despite this, though, I believe that some of these ânon-includedâ sites have been sitting there approximately three to five months now.
The North Hill Preservation District is not large, yet there exists or existed a large number of un-reviewed âdouble utility polesâ for an extended time period. Why does Pensacola, âAmericaâs First settlement,â fail to monitor its historic district rights of ways?
Special mention, also, needs to be accorded the two utility poles at 15 E. DeSoto St. site, right on the edge of the North Hill Preservation District. Believe it or not, the vertical structure on the left side is not a tree that had been snapped off; it is a utility pole that was never removed. It is so old that vines are growing on it. How long does it take for vines to grow on a chemically treated, and presumably toxic, utility pole? I donât think it dates from the 1559 Spanish Settlement and a decade or more is probably too long, as well, but one would certainly have to venture a guess of a few years. Gulf Power may or may not be the owner, but can the City of Pensacola tell us why it has never requested removal of this utility pole?
The City has declared a âmoratoriumâ on new utility structures until final language is drafted into our new historic element to the Comprehensive Plan. Naturally, the utility companies oppose restrictions and Gulf Power, I have heard, has been a very strong opponent. If Gulf Power is truly opposed to new restrictive language and ARB review, one would think that they would be demonstrating model behavior and perfect oversight, thereby making the point that City permitting and review is superfluous. What may we expect if the City, once again, gives the utilities a pass and lets them self-regulate as has been the case to in the past?
As of this writing, and likely in response to my Oct. 15th letter, Gulf Power and perhaps other utility pole owners have begun removing their more longstanding double poles. I believe all of these sites were âmistakesâ akin to the 1008 and 1010 N Reus St. report and have been neglected for the same amount of time: a little over a year. If Gulf Power and the rest of our utilities had to go through City permitting and ARB review, they would be much quicker to be a good neighbor in our historic districts than is presently the case. Gulf Powerâs poor example at 1008 and 1010 N. Reus St. is precisely why they need City oversight.
One would think that Pensacola would be a leader in historic preservation rather than a laggard. Like the AT&T utility cabinets issue, the âdouble utility polesâ stand as ugly monuments to Pensacolaâs lack of full and effective governance. These different and increasing âincidentsâ are manifestations of the same issue; the Cityâs failure to fully govern. Pensacola may be âAmericaâs First Settlementâ in name, but the City of Pensacola, by omission, often acts to diminish its historic integrity.
The purpose of local government is to govern locally and represent the interests of all parties; not just those of âbig business.â
Thank you,
Scott O. Davis
