It's bad enough when a city or town declares an entire neighborhood "historic," over the objections of property owners who (quite understandably) fear that their freedom to renovate or demolish a home or business will be usurped by some historic preservation committee. But even more alarming is the possibility that such designations could be made piecemeal, targeting individual properties that the city, or busy-body neighbors, don't want changed.
Simply by declaring a property "historic," the city acquires veto power over what that property owner can do with it. The individual's rights are thereby trampled in order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the collective.
That's exactly what occurred Tuesday evening in the collectivist commune called Boulder, where the owners of an old cottage found themselves separated from their property rights on a 5-3 vote by City Council. Just like that, Boulder's Planning Board "will gain veto power over any plans they submit, and the proposed expansion will fall under more stringent standards" according to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Read the entire story here.) Even the city's historic preservation planner recommended against the action, arguing that designating the house a landmark didn't balance public and private interests. But the city went ahead anyway, depriving Michael and Michelle Clements of the ability to renovate the cottage as they see fit.
"The couple says they’ve already spent more than $100,000 fighting to build their dream home on the property, while maintaining all but a wooden addition to the cottage that was built in 1952," The Daily Camera reports.
Michelle Clements said at the meeting that the process she and her husband have had to endure so far has been “468 days of emotional and financial devastation.”
She told the council she’s had enough of the city’s process.
“We should have the comfort of knowing we can build without the heavy hand of government hanging over our heads,” she said."
But Americans can no longer enjoy that comfort -- which serves as the foundation for all the other rights and freedoms they hold dear -- when elected officials and appointed planning boards can use coercive historic preservation in this way. If such abuses of power can't be overturned in the courts, they should at least be condemned in the court of public opinion.
But where are the pickets? Where are the protests? Where are Boulder's indignant human rights activists now, when the most fundamental of civil rights -- the right to be secure in your person and possessions -- is being trampled by their elected officials, in their backyard? The silence is deafening -- and reveals a dark and disturbing blind spot in the collectivist mindset.
Given the way this city rolls over its residents, and crushes their rights, they don't call it Boulder for nothing.
Showing posts with label historic preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label historic preservation. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
The Problem with Historic Preservation, Part 2
The second problem with getting government too deeply involved in historic preservation is determining what qualifies as “historic,” since this frequently involves highly subjective value judgments that vary from person to person, interest group to interest group. This wouldn’t matter much if the vast majority of preservation efforts were undertaken by private organizations and individuals, using their own initiative and money (which is the way it should be, in my opinion). But historic preservation is today being collectivized, just as environmental conservation has been collectivized, bringing government power and taxpayer money into the mix.
What then typically occurs is that you have a small minority of narrow-interest activists advancing their aesthetic agendas with the government’s help and at the general public’s expense. Abuses of power and misuses of resources occur. Like many good ideas that morph into government programs, it’s bound to become a racket.
Equally ominous is the hijacking of HP by the anti-development, anti-property rights, pro-central planning crowd, including smart-growthers, new-urbanists and all-purpose NIMBYs. Declaring something “historic” grants local or state governments (not to mention busybody neighbors) power over the property owner that can be used any number of ways.
Here in Colorado, for instance, the elite enclave of Aspen recently re-defined “historic” to include any structure built in the 1970s – an obvious ploy to give city officials veto power over the demolition or alteration of buildings not covered by the previous ordinance. This wasn’t exactly an architectural Golden Age in America; one would think hopelessly charming Aspen would be anxious to see the shag carpets, kitch Swiss chalets and red brick blankness of the decade replaced with faux Victorians. But maintaining control over property owners, not preserving history, is the ultimate goal.
Back to aesthetics for a moment, by way of highlighting the absurdities.
We can all probably agree that Mount Vernon merits protection, as the home of the first U.S. president, but is a boarded-up Denny’s restaurant really deserving of equal protection? It is to some residents of Seattle, who tonight are grieving over a demolished Denny’s. Read all about it here.
The local Landmarks Preservation Board tried to help the cause by declaring the eyesore a preservation-worthy example of “Googie” architecture (I’m not making this up). “More than 600 people, including national experts on Googie architecture and staff members from the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, supported the designation,” reports the Times. A nearby condo owner, Lauri Miller, also vouched for the structure’s historic significance: “One of her favorite waiters worked there, and she remembered the time he surprised her at the restaurant with cake, candles and balloons for her birthday,” according to the story. Miller told the paper she feels ashamed and guilty, fearing that her purchase of a nearby condo created too much “bad karma” to keep the bulldozers at bay.
I think I've made my point.
(I came across a news story on June 30 that adds an absurd new twist -- a house in Pensacola that preservationists are saving, at a cost of $200,000, due to its historic insignificance. "The thing about this house is that no one famous lived here," the associate director of West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc. told the paper. "These houses are significant, particularly because they're not significant." Read the rest of the ridiculous story here.
What then typically occurs is that you have a small minority of narrow-interest activists advancing their aesthetic agendas with the government’s help and at the general public’s expense. Abuses of power and misuses of resources occur. Like many good ideas that morph into government programs, it’s bound to become a racket.
Equally ominous is the hijacking of HP by the anti-development, anti-property rights, pro-central planning crowd, including smart-growthers, new-urbanists and all-purpose NIMBYs. Declaring something “historic” grants local or state governments (not to mention busybody neighbors) power over the property owner that can be used any number of ways.
Here in Colorado, for instance, the elite enclave of Aspen recently re-defined “historic” to include any structure built in the 1970s – an obvious ploy to give city officials veto power over the demolition or alteration of buildings not covered by the previous ordinance. This wasn’t exactly an architectural Golden Age in America; one would think hopelessly charming Aspen would be anxious to see the shag carpets, kitch Swiss chalets and red brick blankness of the decade replaced with faux Victorians. But maintaining control over property owners, not preserving history, is the ultimate goal.
Back to aesthetics for a moment, by way of highlighting the absurdities.
We can all probably agree that Mount Vernon merits protection, as the home of the first U.S. president, but is a boarded-up Denny’s restaurant really deserving of equal protection? It is to some residents of Seattle, who tonight are grieving over a demolished Denny’s. Read all about it here.
The local Landmarks Preservation Board tried to help the cause by declaring the eyesore a preservation-worthy example of “Googie” architecture (I’m not making this up). “More than 600 people, including national experts on Googie architecture and staff members from the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, supported the designation,” reports the Times. A nearby condo owner, Lauri Miller, also vouched for the structure’s historic significance: “One of her favorite waiters worked there, and she remembered the time he surprised her at the restaurant with cake, candles and balloons for her birthday,” according to the story. Miller told the paper she feels ashamed and guilty, fearing that her purchase of a nearby condo created too much “bad karma” to keep the bulldozers at bay.
I think I've made my point.
(I came across a news story on June 30 that adds an absurd new twist -- a house in Pensacola that preservationists are saving, at a cost of $200,000, due to its historic insignificance. "The thing about this house is that no one famous lived here," the associate director of West Florida Historic Preservation, Inc. told the paper. "These houses are significant, particularly because they're not significant." Read the rest of the ridiculous story here.
The Problem with Historic Preservation, Part 1
No one objects to historic preservation efforts that are voluntary, and funded directly by the folks who are doing the preserving and stand to benefit the most. Freedom-loving people should object, however, when such efforts turn coercive and compulsory, placing the power to make such decisions in the hands of entities or individuals other than the property owners, and when the preservationists begin reaching into the taxpayers’ pockets to feed and water their aesthetic hobbyhorses.
Most efforts to designate historic preservation zones begin innocuously enough: Some self-styled local historian or group suggests that one neighborhood or another merits special recognition for its charm and longevity. Many homeowners naturally are flattered to think themselves living in a local “landmark,” and hope such a designation might pump up their housing values, so they eagerly go along, while others may be wary, recognizing a latent threat to their property rights. The problem arises when the former faction attempts to drag along the latter group unwillingly -- which is how most of these initially innocent scenarios play out.
What begins in a spirit of voluntarism ends in coercion, with a majority in the neighborhood voting to approve a historic zone over the objections of a minority. Powers to dictate remodeling and maintenance decisions then are vested in an appointed board of preservationist busy-bodies, which must be consulted on most significant changes to a property. This way lies petty despotism. The facade of history is maintained, while historically-important American values such as property rights fall to ruin.
The trajectory I chart can be seen, in snapshot form, in three recent news posts I came across. The first story -- http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/206130
-- illustrates the early, innocent stage of the process, replete with reassurances to property owners that designation is voluntary and will not impact their property rights. Folks in Fargo’s Oak Grove area are proud of their neighborhood and simply want to see if it merits listing on a national registry. Many may not know what they're getting into.
Fast forward five or six years and some of those living in Oak Grove may find themselves voted into a historic zone by their neighbors, against their wills, and the city of Fargo’s Historic Preservation Commission, whose members are unelected and unaccountable, exercising veto power over what they do with their property. A quick read of these two stories -- http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20080626/READERS/496905059/1025/FEATURES%26parentprofile=-1 and http://www.southbergenite.com/NC/0/1421.html -- will bring home the point.
The first column was written by a woman who’s been fighting a designation for her neighborhood, against an implacable gang of preservationists in Greeley, Colorado.
In the second (somewhat Orwellian) situation, we see a historic preservation commission assuming greater and greater powers, even over homeowners who decline to participate. To deal with the rebels, a new historic preservation ordinance “creates two classes of historic sites: Class A and Class B,” according to the story. “Class A sites, in which the owner accepts the designation, are subject to stricter limitations on how the property can be modified than Class B sites, in which the owner declined the designation. However, both classes of sites will still need commission approval in order for any structure to be demolished in whole or in part.”
The commission is in control, in other words, whether you fall into "Class A" or "Class B."
What this country needs is another sort of historic preservation movement -- one aimed at preserving and upholding the rights of individuals against the tyranny of historic preservationists.
Most efforts to designate historic preservation zones begin innocuously enough: Some self-styled local historian or group suggests that one neighborhood or another merits special recognition for its charm and longevity. Many homeowners naturally are flattered to think themselves living in a local “landmark,” and hope such a designation might pump up their housing values, so they eagerly go along, while others may be wary, recognizing a latent threat to their property rights. The problem arises when the former faction attempts to drag along the latter group unwillingly -- which is how most of these initially innocent scenarios play out.
What begins in a spirit of voluntarism ends in coercion, with a majority in the neighborhood voting to approve a historic zone over the objections of a minority. Powers to dictate remodeling and maintenance decisions then are vested in an appointed board of preservationist busy-bodies, which must be consulted on most significant changes to a property. This way lies petty despotism. The facade of history is maintained, while historically-important American values such as property rights fall to ruin.
The trajectory I chart can be seen, in snapshot form, in three recent news posts I came across. The first story -- http://www.in-forum.com/News/articles/206130
-- illustrates the early, innocent stage of the process, replete with reassurances to property owners that designation is voluntary and will not impact their property rights. Folks in Fargo’s Oak Grove area are proud of their neighborhood and simply want to see if it merits listing on a national registry. Many may not know what they're getting into.
Fast forward five or six years and some of those living in Oak Grove may find themselves voted into a historic zone by their neighbors, against their wills, and the city of Fargo’s Historic Preservation Commission, whose members are unelected and unaccountable, exercising veto power over what they do with their property. A quick read of these two stories -- http://www.greeleytribune.com/article/20080626/READERS/496905059/1025/FEATURES%26parentprofile=-1 and http://www.southbergenite.com/NC/0/1421.html -- will bring home the point.
The first column was written by a woman who’s been fighting a designation for her neighborhood, against an implacable gang of preservationists in Greeley, Colorado.
In the second (somewhat Orwellian) situation, we see a historic preservation commission assuming greater and greater powers, even over homeowners who decline to participate. To deal with the rebels, a new historic preservation ordinance “creates two classes of historic sites: Class A and Class B,” according to the story. “Class A sites, in which the owner accepts the designation, are subject to stricter limitations on how the property can be modified than Class B sites, in which the owner declined the designation. However, both classes of sites will still need commission approval in order for any structure to be demolished in whole or in part.”
The commission is in control, in other words, whether you fall into "Class A" or "Class B."
What this country needs is another sort of historic preservation movement -- one aimed at preserving and upholding the rights of individuals against the tyranny of historic preservationists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)