Friends of Nathan Goff House

PO Box 1634 Clarksburg, WV 26302

March 1997

 Because of the required Federal review, the Friends started asking questions immediately. Realizing the proposed consolidation included only agencies, we became concerned about the 'adverse effects' on our historic district. Despite several attempts, it was only after hiring a historic preservation lawyer the GSA started to listen to our community.

 After almost ten years of discussion and a year into this phase, the GSA admitted they had not been following Federal Historic Preservation Law. From the beginning the Friends have questioned the need to consolidate, the cost efficiencies, the safety of such a consolidation and the timeline of the project. While combining the Department of Developmental Services (DDS) & Social Security Administration (SSA) may be a worthwhile pilot project, the need for 'time constraints' has yet to be explained. These agencies have worked apart and continue to work apart in other places.

 The need to co-locate all agencies seems at odds with government policy. The Department of Justice's 'Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities' has recommendations for improved safety. They say,"GSA should amend its master planning process to evaluate future leasing or construction projects to ensure that functionally similar agencies are housed in the same location. For example, where feasible, agencies requiring a high degree of public contact should not be housed in the same facility as law enforcement agencies."

 Further justification attempts using economies of scale fall short since rental for the proposed building will be more than the present combined rentals.

 Enclosed in this newsletter are several articles relating to Federal Preservation Goals. The first is the May 21, 1996 Executive Order reaffirming the importance of locating in historic districts. Section 3, Identifying and Removing Regulatory Barriers, addresses many of the current problems with the GSA. The second article is the June 1996 GSA order restating the goals of historic preservation.

 The third article is about Robert Peck, the head of the Public Building Service part of the GSA. 'In the past, the GSA usually rejected leasing old buildings, deeming their ceiling height, floor plates and safety equipment unsuitable. "I'm a veteran on these things," he says. When we worked on the preservation of the Old Post Office, "we found ways around all the problems the GSA brought up. I am committed to getting rid of rules that keep things from happening."

What New Commercial Construction?

Clarksburg's business community has a long history of historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Aside from the space in the Heritage Bank and the Lowndes Bank, there has been no new commercial office space in our historic district since the beginning of this century.

 Too often officials and developers speculate about the benefits of new construction. For true sustainable economic development to take place more factors than a new building have to be in place. The Friends continue to challenge the GSA's original assertion that new growth would come from a new building.

The John W. Davis Building

The full text of a letter to the editor of the Clarksburg Telegram from Andrea Ritter is enclosed in this newsletter. The Friends, like others in the community, remain outraged about the working conditions in this building. Even though it is only thirty years old, lack of maintenance has put it at risk. Improper building maintenance remains a threat to our downtown.

Friends of Nathan Goff House - Background

The Friends of Nathan Goff, Jr. House ask serious questions about Historic Preservation. Concerned about CNG's plans to demolish the Goff House, they formed in 1992. Since there was not money to support a multi-million dollar restoration, we asked why the building could not be just rehabilitated.

Recently the Friends asked questions of the City of Clarksburg and the proposed city hall. Knowing Federal law required the city to rehabilitate the current city hall, we worried about the financing of all the projects.

Today the Friends are asking questions of the GSA and not getting very good answers. Since the business sector has not built but two new buildings since the turn of the century, we remain concerned about the impact on our historic district.

 While some attempt to portray the Friends as anti-business or obstructionists, most know we have an excellent 'track record' of asking the right questions. True economic develop requires more than new buildings. Using other cities as models, we know true economic development and historic preservation can go hand-in-hand.

Getting this message across is often costly and help is always needed. While we try to keep legal costs to a minimum, it is usually the only message the GSA and others understand.

 Thank you for whatever help you can provide. If you would like to make a donation to the legal fund, please sent to:

Friends of Nathan Goff Legal Fund

PO Box 1634 Clarksburg, WV 26302-1634

 One of the major problems with the project is the difference in the Building Evaluation Reports (BER) by the GSA and the Waldo owner. In December 1996, a team from Promatech, Inc. of New York City visited the Waldo Hotel. Additionally a historic preservation survey and analysis evaluating the historic architecture and the restoration efforts required to preserve and maintain this historic building has been developed by Celi-Flynn & Associates and is part of the GSA BER. The work of Promatech and Celli-Flynn & Associates leaves many questions.

 Restoration versus rehabilitation is another area of controversy. There is no doubt that the Waldo owner does not have to "restore" the building to met GSA requirements. If the GSA likes the detail, including mosaic tile, vaulted ceilings and ornamental ironwork, they should specify it in the proposed building. The Waldo owner has already includes a very substantial amount for restoration above any required amount!

 Additionally as the project becomes focused on the basic requirements, cost and overhead are reduced. A smaller project including electrical, plumbing, HVAC and office construction is a lot easier to manage than one involved with many restoration details.

 The GSA could avoid all discussion of Adverse Effects and any need for a MOA. Leaving the law enforcement agencies in the Palace would meet the Vulnerability Assessment of the Department of Justice. Additionally it would avoid any Adverse Effects on the Historic District and meet the requirement of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and other review agencies. Rehabilitation of the Waldo for the social service agencies would meet the GSA requirements of the pilot project.