Fayetteville Market House; Intrigue, Lies, Corruption and Perverseness

Fayetteville, N.C. – The city of Fayetteville is in the midst of turmoil regarding the one of a kind architecturally significant and beautiful historic Market House. The nearest known structure like the Market House is located in South Shields, England.

This whole premise that a “building”, or any structure should be demolished simply because something tragic happened there on exceedingly rare occasions is the height of idiocy.

Should the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. be torched and burned to the ground, the ground scraped clear of the ashes and the ashes treated the same way a hazardous material is treated? The ground salted and the earth cemented over so that no one may make use of or tread that particular piece of ground ever again?

Why not? There were nine Black men and women who were not just treated as slaves but killed by an avowed white supremacist there.

There’s no argument that murder is far worse than slavery. If you’re going to demand that the Market House be demolished simply because a minuscule number of slaves were traded on the property, then by the same twisted logic the Emanuel AME Church should be demolished, burned right to the ground, because there were nine innocent Blacks murdered there as opposed to less than a dozen instances of slave trading at the Market House in its entire history.

If the fact that it was simply a market house makes no difference, then the fact that it’s simply a church makes no difference either. Acts by white supremacists were committed at both places. Can you see now how the cancel culture’s twisted way of thinking is so flawed?

The N.C. State Law – North Carolina Historic Preservation Commission’s Standards

N.C.G.S. § 160D-404(c)3.  Enforcement. In case any building, structure, site, area, or object designated as a historic landmark or located within a historic district designated pursuant to this Chapter is about to be demolished whether as the result of deliberate neglect or otherwise, materially altered, remodeled, removed, or destroyed, except in compliance with the development regulation or other provisions of this Chapter, the local government, the historic preservation commission, or other party aggrieved by such action may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent such unlawful demolition, destruction, material alteration, remodeling, or removal, to restrain, correct, or abate such violation, or to prevent any illegal act or conduct with respect to such building, structure, site, area, or object. Such remedies shall be in addition to any others authorized by this Chapter for violation of an ordinance.

The Federal Law – The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

TITLE 36 – PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY; CHAPTER I – NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PART 67 – HISTORIC PRESERVATION CERTIFICATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE § 67.7 (b)3 – Standards for rehabilitation: Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features [(an) opinion formed on slight evidence; a guess.] or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

The First Lie

As a result of the ensuing ludicrously over the Market House lies and corruption are being discovered at an ever increasingly fast pace. The first lie found is this information put out to the public by Gavin MacRoberts who wrote;

A minor Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the project. Minor COA’s are approved by city staff while Major COA’s are approved by Commission, as referenced to in the language you quoted in your request. Minor COA’s do not require the Historic Resources Commission to be notified. For this COA, the City Council waived the fees at the June 22nd meeting.

This is the first lie. That the Inspections Department had the authority to issue a certificate of appropriateness for this project. A certificate of appropriateness was improperly issued.

There exists a very good argument that the crime of government employee malfeasance has been committed. Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a government official had no legal right to do at all and that when a government official, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance.

“Minor Work – Rather than require a full formal commission review of proposals for relatively minor alterations, the ordinance establishing the commission allows certificates of appropriateness for minor works to be reviewed and approved by the Inspections Director in conjunction with the Historic Properties Manager. The Inspections Director in conjunction with the Historic Properties Manager may approve and issue Certificates of Appropriateness for minor works consistent with the design guidelines in the following instances…”

• Where the historic character of the structure is not changed.
• Replacement of missing architectural details,
• Minor alterations are at the rear of a structure which do not change the essential character and which are not in public view.

As we can clearly see in The Design Guidelines/City Historic Property Ordinance for the Fayetteville Historic Districts and Local Landmarks the rules state that the Historic Resources Commission must definitely be notified because approval of “minor” certificates of appropriateness can only be made;

• Where the historic character of the structure is not changed. – The Market House’s historical character is primarily that of … a fruit and vegetable market house and town hall. Where fruits and produce were sold or bartered in the bottom area, and where the town citizens at the time held town meetings in the top room. There were exceedingly rare instances, less than a dozen over a span of thirty years of transactions, of anything to do with slavery regarding the Market House in its entire existence. Placement of contentious anti-slavery strife inducing rhetoric simply has no place in, on, or around, a historical produce and vegetable market place in our current post-racist society. To suggest otherwise would be like demanding that we paint “Food Deaths Matter”, “End Food Poisoning Now” on the street in front of every restaurant simply because restaurants have rare occasions of food poisoning deaths or we demolish a church simply because nine Blacks were murdered in it.
• Replacement of missing architectural details. – There are no historic instances, by image, document, or other media, that reflect the painting on surfaces such as walls or streets of contentious strife inducing anti-slavery rhetoric historically in, on, or around the Market House.
• Minor alterations are at the rear of a structure which do not change the essential character and which are not in public view. – Quite obviously, the placement of painted contentious anti-slavery strife inducing rhetoric on surfaces such as the street surrounding the Market House is not in any way a “minor” altercation in any sense of the word. Nor is it out of public view and it certainly does change the essential character of a “market house” that essentially exclusively sold fruits and vegetables.

The Second Lie

This is the second lie. That the FHRC didn’t need to be notified and a decision by them on the changes at the Market House wasn’t necessary.

Clearly, the proponents of what amounts to nothing more than common property defacing graffiti feared rejection of their proposal by the FHRC on the quite accurately assumed grounds that it violated the Design Guideline/City Historic Property Ordinance and N.C. State law.

The failure to meet the elements of even one of these instances requires that the FHRC be notified and their permission be obtained before any such action is taken. In this issue, there was a failure to meet all three of these elements and thus the notification of the FHRC was compulsory. In essence, this was not, and should have never been considered, a “minor” alteration to the historical district.

Additionally,

Design Guidelines for Fayetteville’s Historic Districts and Local Landmarks; Pg-96, Sec. 32-90. Administrative Approval Of Minor Works. Notwithstanding the subsection above “Action on Certificates of Appropriateness”, upon receipt of a completed application the inspections director may issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for minor works. Minor works are defined as those exterior changes which do not involve alterations, additions or removals that could impair the integrity of the property and/or district as a whole. Such minor works shall be limited to those listed in the “Guidelines for Development of Local Historic Districts and Properties in the City of Fayetteville”. No application may be denied without the formal action of the Commission. All minor works applications approved by the inspections director shall be forwarded to the Commission in time for its next scheduled meeting.

This is an unethical and illegal action taken by the Fayetteville city council who have clearly failed to observe and follow their very own established rules and ordinances on this issue even to the point of taking overt measures to avoid following their own edicts.

The Fayetteville Historic Resources Commission, a creature of the City of Fayetteville in legal parlance, has never been reluctant to vigorously enforce its ordinance and rules as there have been many instances recorded; Cellphone tower violations, and even to the point of unreasonable demands that property owners use outrageously expensive replacement materials for repairs.

An example of this is when the FHRC demanded that M&O Chevrolet use for their building M&O facade Italian red-stained glass used in original construction that was plentiful and cheap in the 1930s but thousands of dollars a small sheet at today’s prices as replacement glass.

Sec. 32-85. Certificate Of Appropriateness Required. From and after the designation of a landmark or a historic district, no exterior portion of any building or other structure (including masonry walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and pavement, or other appurtenant features), nor any above-ground utility structure nor any type of outdoor advertising sign shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished on such landmark or within the historic district until after an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as to exterior features has been submitted to and approved by the Commission. Such a certificate is required to be issued by the Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for the purposes of constructing, altering, moving or demolishing structures, which certificate may be issued subject to reasonable conditions necessary to carry out the purposes of this ordinance. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building or other permit is required.

For purposes of this ordinance “exterior features” shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of a site of the exterior of a building, or other structure, including the kind and texture of the building material, the size and scale of the building, the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, site lighting, signs and other appurtenant features. In the case of outdoor advertising signs “exterior features” shall include style, material, size and location of all such signs. “Exterior features” include landscaping and natural land features such as creeks or rivers, creek banks or plants. Also “exterior features” shall include such items as parking lots and site furnishings.

*In a legal context, an appurtenance is something that is attached to, or belongs to, a building or piece of land in such a manner that it is part of the property, such as a barn, yard, or driveway. However, this does not extend to city streets or roadways, or any other property that is under the direct control of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and its uniform traffic marking directives.

The Corruption

But lies aren’t the only issue in this spectacle. Government corruption is also at play here too. It is quite obvious that Colvin, Fayetteville’s criminally convicted mayor, is very adept at breaking laws, ordinances, rules, and even simple moral codes of behavior should they become obstacles to his personal agenda.

Colvin has a very sordid history of criminal activity throughout his life. And apparently, city ordinance historic district rules don’t apply to Colvin either as evidenced by his ignoring them when it came to one of his own buildings. And there is reason to believe that there’s a deeply embedded problem with race-centric cronyism within the workings of the City of Fayetteville administration.

Troubling is the fact that seven Fayetteville residents serving in leadership positions on the Fayetteville Historic Resources Commission (Thomas Batson, Jeremy Fiebig, Gordon Johnson, Tiffany Ketchum, George Turner, Henry Tyson, Liz Vernadoe), collectively not only recognized, identified and acknowledged Colvin’s violations and wrongdoing, but they refused to take the appropriate action. Their refusal left one of their own FHRC board members [Bruce Arnold], who followed the rules, enforced the policies and executed the FHRC’s responsibilities, out in the cold to absorb the full wrath of the mayor all by himself. That’s a significant betrayal of trust and dereliction of responsibility. ~ Up & Coming Weekly

There are even mutterings within city hall about people’s jobs being threatened and careers ended if they even attempted to stand their ground regarding the legality of the Market House’s destruction or relocation or point out to the city council the relevant laws, ordinances, or rules that preclude painting anything around the Market House much less relocating or demolishing it.

All of this gives rise to suspicions by the citizenry that there exists some kind of corrupt race-centric cabal within the city administration. One that’s allegedly either tacitly approved by, or even spearheaded by, the alleged mayor Colvin, city attorney Karen McDonald, and council member Militant-McLaughlin. One whose design is to promote and advance illegal acts to fulfill their personal agendas while simultaneously inducing violent and destructive activism within Fayetteville’s system of government.

A suspicion made easily believable as it’s supported by;

• Colvin’s violations regarding his own property in Fayetteville’s Historic District,
• McDonald’s “apparent” failure to properly advise the whole of the city council with timely and accurate information, 
• Militant-McLaughlin’s motions to demolish the Market House or failing that, to change the “Black Lives ‘Do’ Matter” to the much-despised anti-American socialist Marxist BLM clarion call of “Black Lives Matter”.

The Intrigue

Additionally, there are highly visible signs of information necessary to the proper administration of the city being allegedly intentionally withheld from select members of the council by Colvin, the city’s alleged mayor, and by city attorney McDonald. It appears that the city council is not being properly advised and that information is not forthcoming unless, and until, a city council member asks questions. The problem is that the city council doesn’t know what it doesn’t know. Providing the necessary timely accurate information is a core function of the city manager and city attorney.

City Mayor Pro-Tem Kathy Jensen wisely remarked in the January 27th special city council meeting that the city council needs a carefully considered written policy to guide such issues as these in the future. That she did is evidence that she’s not receiving prompt adequate advice and information from city manager Hewett and city attorney McDonald.

Such a policy does exist in the form of laws, ordinance, and guidelines and city attorney McDonald should have had N.C. State laws N.C.G.S. § 160D-404, N.C.G.S. § 160D-942, and the Fayetteville Historic Districts and Local Landmarks Design Guidelines/City Historic Property Ordinance in the hands of all the council members long before this with page markers on pages Forward, 3, 4, 38, 61, 71, 93-103 (ordinance). The ordinance is at the bottom of the Design Guideline/City Historic Property Ordinance.

Councilmember Tisha Waddell rightfully demanded to know how the city council was placed in the position of having to address the issue in the first place.

Councilmember Waddell said,  “$10,000 with the installation and removal and now we want to waste another $10,000? I speak for all in my constituency who are not for the reinstallment of the mural as a bandaid just to shut down responsibility for the problems before us.” Councilmember Waddell continued, “What process was broken and how was it a mistake? Why was it removed?” referring to the mural being removed in the first place.

Colvin’s cowardly reaction was to deflect and dodge responsibility by irritatingly whining that it was more about moving forward, not pointing fingers. No Colvin, councilmember Waddell is perfectly within her rights as a council member to hold your feet to the fire on this aspect of the issue and continue to demand answers from you. 

To answer councilmember’s question in part is that the existing policy is too loose and allows for manipulation of city employees by unethical actors within the city’s administration. 

The FHRC is supposed to be making these kinds of hard decisions instead of the Inspections Department staff or any other city administrator regardless of any particular staff member’s position or title, even if it’s that of mayor or city manager. We’re supposed to be a form of government that answers to “We the People”. Else, why even have an FHRC? The FHRC is composed of citizens who are to be well versed in historical matters. The state intended the historic commissions to give direction to the cities’ planning departments and administrations based on a specific set of rules and laws, not take direction from them.

A solution that would go a long way to resolve future problems like this would be to change: “Application is approved by staff and Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is issued.” To read; “Application is approved by staff and Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is issued only if;

• the proposal does not involve the use of Fayetteville tax funds of any nature or
• the proposal is not in conflict, or raise the question of even a possible conflict, with any Federal/State law, city ordinance, or design rule set forth in Design Guidelines/City Historic Property Ordinance as determined in a light most favorable to the viewpoint of FHRC or
• the total cost of the proposal does not exceed $500.00.

The irrefutable truth here is that if the city council had been made aware of, and followed, the laws and rules laid out very clearly in N.C.G.S. § 160D-404(c)3 and the Design Guideline/City Historic Property Ordinance they would have correctly and legally saved, not moronically wasted, $20,000 of Fayetteville’s tax payer’s hard-earned tax dollars.

If the city manager Hewett had properly supervised city attorney McDonald making sure that she had made available in a timely manner all the edicts regarding the Market House to the city council it is highly likely that all of this nonsense could have been avoided. It is likely that armed with the facts the cooler heads on the city council, Jensen, Waddell, and Dawkins, could have put a stop to all the knee-jerk painting and properly avoided the whole mess they find themselves in now.

The Perverseness

Now, these violations can’t be laid entirely at the feet of all city council members. They rely on credible and accurate advice from the city manager and the city attorney. Why did the city attorney, McDonald not give the city council all the laws, ordinances, rules, and FHRC directives applicable regarding the Market House and the clearly glaringly significant alteration of painting around it “Black Lives Do Matter” and “End Racism Now” that are a violation of those edicts?

Why does the city manager, Doug Hewett, continue to tolerate McDonald’s inability to properly conduct timely research and be prepared to properly, concisely, and completely answer council member’s questions at the city council meetings? Does McDonald not know how to access the city council meeting agendas (<– so easy that even a citizen can do it) and from them deduce the topics and information in advance that she would need to be properly prepared to give accurate legal advice about?

But then Hewett is alleged to have decision-making difficulties himself. Something about a DUI after drinking at a bar called “Swinging Richards” at a previous job. Again, yet another example of Fayetteville’s administration being populated by swamp creatures. How did Hewett ever get the job of the city manager with a DUI arrest on his record? Hewett had “red bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech and the strong smell of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath,” the police report said. 

A google search for his now-deleted personal Twitter account (NC_Pimpernel) provides a glimpse of his private persona. Hewett’s handle on the social media site is a reference to the Scarlet Pimpernel, a dandified literary character who under disguise “rescues aristocrats”. On the social media site, Hewett described himself as an “uncivil civil servant” and says: “You’ve been warned!”

McDonald’s job is to listen closely to the city council’s discussions. Immediately upon hearing violations of policies, laws, ordinances, or other restrictive edicts, it’s McDonald’s job to stridently and ardently intervene and inform them about what violations they’re about to commit. Immediately afterward, McDonald should be able to give them a reference to the associated documentation that precludes such actions so that they may educate themselves on their mistake. This is how good city attorneys act and good city councilors are developed.

Quite clearly these perverse failures on the part of McDonald should reflect negatively in her next work evaluation. Without a doubt, the citizenry of Fayetteville expects a far better performance from McDonald than she been displaying. McDonald’s job is supposed to be keeping the City of Fayetteville and the city council out of trouble, not allowing them to devolve into perverse chaos and property damage due to her inability to properly perform her job in an accurate and timely manner.

It would be advisable for any, or all, members of the city council to demand that it be placed in the city attorney’s;

• Job description:  The city attorney is responsible for determining before any city council meeting, regular, special, or of any other characterization, the topics to be discussed and provide by electronic means to all city council members, the city manager, and the city council’s clerk, a complete (not just a list of alpha-numerical identifiers) and accurate copy of all relevant laws, ordinances, policies, rules, and regulations applicable to each topic with the pertinent sections that allow, or disallow, any probable action highlighted in a clearly discernible manner so that proper legal decisions can be intelligently discussed and rendered by the city council.
• Performance Review: Did the city attorney responsibly and consistently determine before any city council meeting, regular, special, or of any other characterization, the topics to be discussed and provide by electronic means to all city council members, the city manager, and the city council’s clerk, a complete (not just a list of alpha-numerical identifiers) and accurate copy of all relevant laws, ordinances, policies, rules, and regulations applicable to each topic with the pertinent sections that allow, or disallow, any probable action highlighted in a clearly discernible manner so that proper legal decisions were able to be intelligently discussed and rendered by the city council?

Such additions would provide for complete transparency to all council members equally and ensure that the city attorney and its staff were performing their jobs at the level of expertise necessary to keep the City of Fayetteville and its city council members out of lawsuits and other legal problems.

Of particular note were these rules that the city council should have been aware of from the start;

The review of proposed changes in historic districts can follow two basic rules: 1) repair rather than replace; 2) if replacement is necessary, match the original as closely as possible. In addition, there are specific questions that can be asked to determine if a project is compatible with the design guidelines. The questions are:

• Will the proposed change adversely affect adjoining properties and the district?
• Will the proposed change alter the character of the property or district?
• Will the proposed change create a false sense of history?

If the answer is yes to any of the above questions, the project should be reevaluated.

In the case of the Market House, it is quite evident that the answer to these questions is a resounding “YES!”

• Will the proposed change adversely affect adjoining properties and the district? – Well of course it would. A glaring display in school bus yellow-painted graffiti spelling out contentious anti-slavery strife inducing rhetoric like “Black Lives Do Matter” and “End Racism Now” serves only to make people think that they’ve stepped into, and are traversing, a highly volatile and dangerous area where riots and mayhem abound. Now, what residence or business want’s something like that nearby? It’s certain to drive down business and attract a criminal element.
• Will the proposed change alter the character of the property or district? – The Market House’s historical character is primarily that of a fruit and vegetable market house, not a monument of slavery. Just like a church’s historical character is primarily that of a house of worshippers of the Lord, and not a charnel house of death that needs to be utterly destroyed just because good people were murdered in it. 
• Will the proposed change create a false sense of history? – The placement of contentious anti-slavery strife inducing rhetoric does in fact cause a false sense of history. The Market House, built in 1838 is far more well known for the ground floor being used as a fruit, vegetable, and dry goods market space until 1907, and the upper level as the town hall until 1906 rather than any slave market. A study completed by Duke University professor John Cavanagh noted that “sales [near this location] were spaced on the average about two months apart, if that frequently, and in most instances, no slaves were involved in each transaction.” 

3. Historically unpainted materials and surfaces should not be painted.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that!

Surface | noun | sur·​face | \ ˈsər-fəs \
Definition of surface – 1: the exterior or upper boundary of an object or body
Example: //on the surface of the water;
          // the pavement’s surface

Relocation, demolition, and demolition by neglect are the three most serious threats to Fayetteville’s historic districts. Over the years the historic districts have been plagued by these three elements. In recent years, the revitalization movement has helped to spread community awareness regarding the importance of our historic built environment. The city has also helped spread the message by passing the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance with an emphasis on demolition by neglect. It is important to realize that every building that is moved loses its historic context of site, setting, association and feeling. In addition, every building that is demolished is a historic resource that can never be replaced. The buildings contained within the historic districts form a tangible interpretation of the history of Fayetteville and its people. It is a living history that should be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.

Quite clearly this admonition and N.C.G.S. § 160D-404(c)3 were authored with people like the militant council member McLaughlin in mind. And yes, those of her ilk are in fact a serious threat to Fayetteville’s historic district. Militant-McLaughlin does illogically strive to deprive future diverse generations of us all of the enjoyment of Fayetteville’s history for no better reason than an irrational abject fear of … a mere building.

Additionally, Militant-Mclaughlin is in violation of;

 

PART II – CODE OF ORDINANCES; CHAPTER 2 – ADMINISTRATION; Article IV. – Code of Ethics; Sec. 2-94(d). Conflict of Interest – Representation of private persons. No elected or appointed official or employee shall appear as an advocate or agent of any person, other than himself, before any public body in the city.

Militant’s-McLaughlin’s unabashed advocacy of co-founders, Marxist Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi and their highly despised organization BLM by her incessant city council motions to change the graffiti “Black Lives Do Matter” to “Black Lives Matter”, the clarion call, and motto of the socialist Marxist organization is a direct violation of this city ordinance regarding ethical behavior. The citizens of Fayetteville need to rise up and demand that Militant-McLaughlin cease these unethical demands for advocacy of socialism, Marxism, and anti-Americanism in her position as a city council member as a representative of Fayetteville’s citizenry. 

Should one press her for a “logical” reason for the destruction of the building it’s highly probable she’d simply blankly stare at you in confusion for a prolonged stupefied moment and then viciously resort to emotionally incontinent accusations of racism to cover her mental inadequacies. Sadly, that’s the default fallback of such broken people.

Being illogical and irrational are quite often traits of those who seek to destroy. Such people are broken and incapable of seeing the beauty that surrounds them whether it be in the actions of good people or the artistry of historic buildings. They’ve never been happy. They can never be happy. They are a toxic element in society that draws others unwittingly into their web of misery. 

While out of the kindness of our hearts we should pity Militant-Mclaughlin, out of the logic of our minds we should, when confronted with words out of her mouth, patiently occasionally nod as if listening to her and immediately upon parting from her move on to issues that actually have merit and importance.

• Signs are used to identify businesses from the street.
• In historically commercial districts signs should be no larger than necessary to identify the building’s use.

It’s clear that the pavement signage obtusely referred to as a “mural” does not identify a business as no business currently exists within the Market House. 

And that ten-foot glaring bus yellow letters in the form of pavement signage is completely out of character and inappropriate for the area, especially considering that it’s a “historic” district goes without saying. 

• Design new signs in a manner that is compatible with the building and surrounding district in materials, scale, size, design, and detail without creating a false sense of history.
• Construct new signs with materials traditionally used for signs. Examples include metal, stone, and wood. Plastic signs are not compatible with the character of historic areas.
• Sign colors should be compatible with the colors on the building or within the district.

It is “new” signage, but it certainly does not meet the standard of being “compatible with the building and surrounding district in materials, scale, size, design, and detail without creating a false sense of history.”

And it’s abundantly clear that the new signage was not properly constructed with “materials traditionally used for signs.”

Additionally, no one can argue that the glaring school bus yellow is “compatible with the colors on the building or within the district.”

The Conclusion

Sandwich boards would be an appropriate replacement for the clearly illegal and inappropriate graffiti around the Market House. They are constructed with materials traditionally used for signs. Wood and chalkboard are historically correct materials to use. The colors match those traditional in the historic district. They have the additional aspect of being immensely far more readable than the painting on the road. A set of sandwich boards facing each intersecting street and your message is seen.

And we don’t come across as being an egotistically arrogant city in a contest with other cities as to who has the biggest…well, I guess “swinging Richard” would be a polite term in today’s society. The whole “paint around the Market House” concept does come across as some sort of desperate compensation for personal shortcomings when one really thinks about it.

The Fayetteville Historic Resources Commission can be reached at the Planning Department at (910) 433-1612 or Jennifer Baptiste, Senior Planner, at (910) 433-1936.  The N.C. State Historic Preservation Office can be reached at (919) 814-6570. Reach out to them and demand that they save the historic Market House today!

N.C.G.S. § 160D-942. Powers of the historic preservation commission.

A preservation commission established pursuant to this Chapter may, within the planning and development regulation jurisdiction of the local government, do any of the following:

(1) Undertake an inventory of properties of historical, prehistorical, architectural, and/or cultural significance.

(2) Recommend to the governing board areas to be designated by ordinance as “Historic Districts” and individual structures, buildings, sites, areas, or objects to be designated by ordinance as “Landmarks.”

(3) Acquire by any lawful means the fee or any lesser included interest, including options to purchase, to properties within established districts or to any such properties designated as landmarks to hold, manage, preserve, restore, and improve such properties, and to exchange or dispose of the property by public or private sale, lease or otherwise, subject to covenants or other legally binding restrictions that will secure appropriate rights of public access and promote the preservation of the property.

(4) Restore, preserve, and operate historic properties.

(5) Recommend to the governing board that designation of any area as a historic district or part thereof, or designation of any building, structure, site, area, or object as a landmark, be revoked or removed for cause.

(6) Conduct an educational program regarding historic properties and districts within its jurisdiction.

(7) Cooperate with the State, federal, and local governments in pursuance of the purposes of this Part. The governing board or the commission, when authorized by the governing board, may contract with the State, or the United States of America, or any agency of either, or with any other organization provided the terms are not inconsistent with State or federal law.

(8) Enter, solely in performance of its official duties and only at reasonable times, upon private lands for examination or survey thereof. However, no member, employee, or agent of the commission may enter any private building or structure without the express consent of the owner or occupant thereof.

(9) Prepare and recommend the official adoption of a preservation element as part of the local government’s comprehensive plan.

(10) Review and act [preservation is the goal] upon proposals for alterations, demolitions, or new construction within historic districts, or for the alteration or demolition of designated landmarks, pursuant to this Part.

(11) Negotiate at any time with the owner of a building, structure, site, area, or object for its acquisition or its preservation, when such action is reasonably necessary or appropriate.

(2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a), (b), (d).)

N.C.G.S. § 160D-404.  Enforcement.

(a) Notices of Violation. – When staff determines work or activity has been undertaken in violation of a development regulation adopted pursuant to this Chapter or other local development regulation or any State law delegated to the local government for enforcement purposes in lieu of the State or in violation of the terms of a development approval, a written notice of violation may be issued. The notice of violation shall be delivered to the holder of the development approval and to the landowner of the property involved, if the landowner is not the holder of the development approval, by personal delivery, electronic delivery, or first-class mail and may be provided by similar means to the occupant of the property or the person undertaking the work or activity. The notice of violation may be posted on the property. The person providing the notice of violation shall certify to the local government that the notice was provided, and the certificate shall be deemed conclusive in the absence of fraud. Except as provided by G.S. 160D-1123 or G.S. 160D-1206 or otherwise provided by law, a notice of violation may be appealed to the board of adjustment pursuant to G.S. 160D-405.

(b) Stop Work Orders. – Whenever any work or activity subject to regulation pursuant to this Chapter or other applicable local development regulation or any State law delegated to the local government for enforcement purposes in lieu of the State is undertaken in substantial violation of any State or local law, or in a manner that endangers life or property, staff may order the specific part of the work or activity that is in violation or presents such a hazard to be immediately stopped. The order shall be in writing, directed to the person doing the work or activity, and shall state the specific work or activity to be stopped, the reasons therefor, and the conditions under which the work or activity may be resumed. A copy of the order shall be delivered to the holder of the development approval and to the owner of the property involved (if that person is not the holder of the development approval) by personal delivery, electronic delivery, or first-class mail. The person or persons delivering the stop work order shall certify to the local government that the order was delivered and that certificate shall be deemed conclusive in the absence of fraud. Except as provided by G.S. 160D-1112 and G.S. 160D-1208, a stop work order may be appealed pursuant to G.S. 160D-405. No further work or activity shall take place in violation of a stop work order pending a ruling on the appeal. Violation of a stop work order shall constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(c) Remedies. –

1. 1. Subject to the provisions of the development regulation, any development regulation adopted pursuant to authority conferred by this Chapter may be enforced by any remedy provided by G.S. 160A-175 or G.S. 153A-123. If a building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, repaired, converted, or maintained, or any building, structure, or land is used or developed in violation of this Chapter or of any development regulation or other regulation made under authority of this Chapter, the local government, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent the unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, conversion, maintenance, use, or development; to restrain, correct or abate the violation; to prevent occupancy of the building, structure, or land; or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business, or use in or about the premises.
   2. When a development regulation adopted pursuant to authority conferred by this Chapter is to be applied or enforced in any area outside the planning and development regulation jurisdiction of a city as set forth in Article 2 of this Chapter, the city and the property owner shall certify that the application or enforcement of the city development regulation is not under coercion or otherwise based on representation by the city that the city’s development approval would be withheld without the application or enforcement of the city development regulation outside the jurisdiction of the city. The certification may be evidenced by a signed statement of the parties on any development approval.
   3. In case any building, structure, site, area, or object designated as a historic landmark or located within a historic district designated pursuant to this Chapter is about to be demolished whether as the result of deliberate neglect or otherwise, materially altered, remodeled, removed, or destroyed, except in compliance with the development regulation or other provisions of this Chapter, the local government, the historic preservation commission, or other party aggrieved by such action may institute any appropriate action or proceedings to prevent such unlawful demolition, destruction, material alteration, remodeling, or removal, to restrain, correct, or abate such violation, or to prevent any illegal act or conduct with respect to such building, structure, site, area, or object. Such remedies shall be in addition to any others authorized by this Chapter for violation of an ordinance.  (2019-111, s. 2.4; 2020-3, s. 4.33(a); 2020-25, s. 51(a), (b), (d).)