Our Opinion: Snapshot in the preservation, property rights debate

Friday, September 14, 2012

A modest request from historic preservationists has raised, once again, the ire of property rights purists.

Is the reaction disproportionate to the request?

We think so, although we acknowledge valid arguments by both factions in this often-divisive debate.

The detonator for the most recent skirmish was discussion at Tuesday’s meeting of Jefferson City’s Historic Preservation Commission to request interior photographs of properties targeted for demolition.

Reaction to our story, posted on our website, included the phrases: “Tyranny in local government” and “abuse of power.”

Let’s look at the process enacted by elected City Council members.

According to the city’s website, all applications for permission to demolish a building are made to the city’s Department of Planning and Protective Services.

If a building is more than 50 years old or has historic significance, the department forwards a copy of the application to Historic Preservation Commission for review. The commission has a 60 days to evaluate the building for architectural, cultural and historic significance.

The commission then recommends to the city approval or rejection of the proposed demolition.

On Tuesday, commissioners discussed whether to ask that interior photos accompany the demolition permit. The rationale, according to Chairman Cathy Bordner, is because “we can’t require them (property owners) to let us inside the building to know what we’re voting on.”

Historic preservationists and property rights purists represent opposing viewpoints on the issue: Does ownership prevail or does a broader community share an interest in preserving historic sites that, once destroyed, cannot be resurrected?

We don’t interpret the commissioners’ concern as a volley in that larger debate.

Instead, interior photos seem a reasonable addition to help them make an informed decision the city already is asking and empowering them to perform.

More like this story

spelchek 8 months, 1 week ago

There is nothing private about property whose fate is ultimately dictated by government (public). That's my worthless two cents...

Have a good weekend.

asb 8 months, 1 week ago

The real issue isn't the photographs, the real issue is the authority of an appointed commission to restrict the use, or demolition, of property, private or otherwise. The ordinance authorizing their control is widely used throughout the country. Have there been challenges?

Sequoia 8 months, 1 week ago

Private ownership of property has never been absolute, never in our history. Property rights are "a bundle of sticks," that is, a collection of rights: sell, encumber, devise, develop, mine, farm, exclude others, etc. Not "do whatever you want when you want."

There has always been a common law against nuisance, for one thing. You can't use your property in a way that injures other people's rights to enjoy THEIR property.

Preservation laws are a response to owners who, in the past, have trashed important, distinguishing features of cities that, once they are gone, are gone forever. That's certainly not anything a conservative should cheer on just so we can have another gas station. I'll agree that preservation in some communities can go overboard. I don't think that's happened in JC.

Conservatives like to be grounded in tradition, to feel a connection with a place across time and generations. Architecture is a huge part of that.

So many of our buildings, like malls and stores and gas stations, do not seem to be designed to be looked at. It is as if it had never occurred to their creator that the building might be LOOKED at by someone from the outside and exist in place and time. Wal Mart only exists to be INSIDE the Wal Mart, in the Eternal Now of the Shopping Experience. All that matters is the experience of the CONSUMER on the inside. It's as if the structure is not meant to be seen from the outside, because a person outside has not yet become a consumer and therefore does not exist to Wal Mart. We live in the invisible landscape of consumption, populated with corporate "people."

If you're looking for tyrants, think of it this way: We live in a world built for the car and the charge card.

Do you remember the old way, when people were people and we took pride in the things we built on this earth we were given? When our lives happened in a place that wasn't "virtual"?

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune