FAIRHOPE, Ala. - A clear majority of speakers and supporters at Monday’s public meeting were opposed to a proposal to create a commission that could form historic districts on the application of residents and neighborhoods.

Although the audience was told by Councilwoman Debbie Quinn, the sponsor of the ordinance, that the new law would not have enforcement powers,and could not force any resident to do anything with their property they didn’t want to do, most of the audience of nearly 100 people was skeptical, at best.

“Historical districts or classifications sound good, and sounded good last time, for the people who want to do that, but the problem I have with it is, it’s going to be someone else deciding and telling me this is what I have to do,” said real estate business owner and Fairhope native Arthur Mannich, referring to past efforts to pass historic preservation laws. “I’m not naive; once they get their foot in the door, another one of our rights will be eroded.”

In addition to his downtown business, Mannich served several years on Fairhope’s Zoning Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which enforces certain zoning regulations.

The proposed ordinance introduced at the April 25 council meeting was pulled from the council agenda that night which followed the hour-long public meeting that night because incorrect provisions were included in the proposal, Quinn said.

That proposal, despite what its supporters had stated since it was introduced, did provide enforcement penalties and empowered the Historic Districts and Landmarks Commission, as well as the council, to create historic districts without resident or neighborhood application,” Quinn said.

“We goofed,” said Quinn, who took the blame for the mistake, explaining the error was caused by computer software compatibility problems. “Several things wound up in the ordinance that shouldn’t have been there that had been deleted a year ago. So, tonight, we’re starting with what should have been (the original ordinance), which is a draft, which can be changed.”

Copies of the draft law were circulated at the May 9 meeting and will be posted on the city’s website, according to city staff, although it had not been done so by press time.

Council President Lonnie Mixon said there will be at least one other public meeting before any vote on the proposed ordinance would occur.

The mix-up over the ordinance’s provisions did not help the proponents in making their case for the proposal, or build trust with some in the community who had opposed earlier efforts to pass historic preservation laws.

“The outrage was partly how it was handled,” said Billie Carlisle, of an earlier historic preservation effort. “There were many untruths (told) by the people who were trying to pass it that were uncovered, and people were really unhappy about it.”

Carlisle became unhappy herself at the May 9 meeting, as did some of her supporters in the audience, when Mixon called time on her three-minute comments.

“I signed up for myself and my husband,” she said, as she began to talk again.

Mixon said, “That’s enough Mrs. Carlisle.”

Someone shouted, “Other people had longer.”

That person was probably referring to the opening comments by Quinn and two Historic Preservation Committee members who outlined the bill.

By the time they were finished, 35 minutes remained in the meeting for others to speak. Several people who signed up did not get to speak, according to city staff.

“You don’t like my position,” Carlisle said as she left the podium. “The deck is already stacked anyway.”

Mayor Tim Kant spoke out against the proposal at Monday’s meeting and in a radio show on WABF 1120 AM Tuesday morning, saying the law could result in tax breaks to downtown businesses that would result in less revenue to the city.

Councilwoman Mike Ford also spoke out against the proposal, as he did when a resolution in support of the concept came up at a council meeting in June last year.

Ford eventually voted with the other council members at that time, resulting in a unanimous vote in favor of a law that would create a historic districts commission.

That resolution also cited a survey showing that 70 percent of residents responding, favored such a law for the downtown area.

“Mayor Kant responded (to Ford) that the survey results showed that citizens want to protect the downtown,” according to the June 28 minutes.

The survey was not a professional poll, according to staff and officials at the time, but a mail and email survey intended to get a general sense of residents’ interests on a variety of topics facing the city.

One speaker at the public meeting this week, Mike Berharndt, who built Founder’s Square condominiums on South Section Street, and received permission recently from the Planning Commission to expand that project into a larger hotel and residence building, said the proposed law would shut down his plans.

“This ordinance will eliminate the nation’s first Pulitzer Hotel and Pulitzer library,” he said, referring to his recent partnership with the great-grandson of the Pulitzer Prize founder. “We think the city should comply and adhere to its Comprehensive Plan.”

On that last point, at least one opponent was in agreement with one of the drafters of the ordinance.

During his presentation at the start of the meeting, Gary Gover, chairman of the Historic Preservation Committee, also cited the city’s Comprehensive Plan as support for the ordinance.

That comp plan, which many cities are required by state law to develop, states that Fairhope should have “prepared” a historic districts ordinance two to three years ago. The plan does not state whether the ordinance should be enacted.

In the comp plan’s introduction, there is language that has been interpreted by some residents to support such an ordinance, when it states that “newer subdivisions and commercial properties are being developed, but in a pattern that is dissimilar to Fairhope’s past.”

That section ends by stating that, “Growth in Fairhope is inevitable. There is concern about the nature, quality and scale of this growth. An important question for this planning process is if future growth can occur in harmony with the scale and character of Fairhope’s past.”

Proponents of the ordinance say a new law is needed to help answer that question, while opponents say the city has been able to handle the issue successfully for many years without such a law.