In the flimsies is an article on the Coronado Line of the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway lacking historic and architectural significance. Please take the time to read this article. It is a step by the "agencies" involved to eliminate the historic review required when you are dealing with designated historic properties. Note the comment about the replacement of historic fabric and what this means to operating listed properties. Can anyone keep their equipment/line in safe operating condition and still maintain historic requirements against hostile historians?

lamontdc@adelphia.net

Can
> anyone keep their equipment/line in safe
> operating condition and still maintain
> historic requirements against hostile
> historians?

GE, not sure why you lay this at the feet of "hostile historians" If I read the article in Flimsies right, every reputable heritage/history group in the city favored the historic designation; it was pro-redevelopment municipal forces, not historians, who spear-headed the removal.

That said, the logic that because the RR line has been maintained it is not historic is ridiculous. By that argument we can start with sinking the USS Constitution, which probably doesn't have two scraps of keel left from the 1790s.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> GE, not sure why you lay this at the feet of
> "hostile historians"

"Salomone said a new report submitted for yesterday's
hearing to the commission -- all but two members
where on the panel that voted for the historic
designation in February-- said it would not be
economically beneficial to preserve the line and that
much of the track had been rebuilt.
"All of the parts of the railroad had been replaced,"
Salomone said. "Nothing from the turn of the century
is still there."

I read that the review board overthrew the original decision helped by the intervention of the Governor. I have seen this happen before where a "rail historian" was paid by a public agency to write a "con" opinion on a similar application for a RR. The "gentleman" in proceeded to pan everything that was left and in a very unprofessional manner inserted a multitude of innuendo to further his case. The crowning glory was a statement that involved the reconstruction of a three track highway crossing with a totally restored and operating crossing gate and flasher system ... when he stated that in the picture captions that this is not the original system and it probably doesn't work. Really impressive when the politicans get involved.

lamontdc@adelphia.net

I have seen this happen
> before where a "rail historian"
> was paid by a public agency to write a
> "con" opinion on a similar
> application for a RR.

Do we know how wrote the "con" report in this case in San Diego?


eledbetter@rypn.org