View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Our View: The splintered results of ‘opt in’ preservation

Posted: July 13, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: July 13, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

The destruction of a 100-year-old former Newhall school building has caused quite a stir within the historic preservation community in Santa Clarita.

The razing of the building was perfectly legal. The developer who had the building torn down, as well as the city’s Planning Department, did nothing wrong.

The building was not on any historic preservation list, and nothing had been done with the building for many years.

But the tearing down of the former school illustrates that the city of Santa Clarita’s historic preservation strategy still needs some fine-tuning.

The current historic preservation ordinance, revised in 2013, was passed by the City Council in an attempt to balance the rights of property owners with the public interest of preserving historical structures.

There is a list of structures that are deemed historic in town, but other than that the ordinance allows the owners of other property to “opt in” to the ordinance, giving them a choice on whether they want to seek historic designation for their properties.

If they do so the city would give them some perks such as fee waivers and a streamlined permitting process.

That’s it. That’s the historic preservation ordinance. Property owners don’t have to adhere to it if they don’t want to.
If the city is serious about preserving historic structures, it needs to provide a better mechanism for consideration of the historical status of buildings.

Perhaps this means having, in addition to the official historic structure list, another “B” list of buildings that may be considered historic and should get closer scrutiny by the city if significant changes are proposed to the property.

Perhaps a grandfather clause could be put into this “B” list so that only future owners of the structures would need to adhere to this closer scrutiny.

Obviously, this would be far from perfect, but it would allow a framework for discussion about the status of older buildings within the city.

You can’t go halfway in historic preservation. We either need a more detailed strategy for preservation that prevents buildings such as the old Newhall school from falling through the cracks — or we need to decide historic structures aren’t important and quit complaining when they fall to the wrecking ball.

 

Comments

BrianBaker: Posted: July 13, 2014 7:21 a.m.

Let them fall to the wrecking ball.

Why should an owner who paid their own good money for a property be restricted from developing it?

If it's such a big deal for some old building to be "preserved", let the city or some other entity PAY for it and buy it from its owner. I see no valid reason why the current owner should be FORCED to bear all the financial burdens of "preserving" some property if they've got other plans for what to do with THEIR OWN BUILDING that are otherwise perfectly legal.


tech: Posted: July 15, 2014 10:18 p.m.

Precisely, Brian.

The Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments are quite clear on eminent domain.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5bfrag4_user.html


chefgirl358: Posted: July 28, 2014 10:34 a.m.

Yep, agreed guys.

Additionally, purchasing a home or whatever it is deemed historic is so stifling and burdensome I can't see why anyone would ever bother to. It's like an H.O.A. but about a million times more onerous. You can't do or change almost anything to or on the property or you face penalties and all sorts of bureaucratic bs.

If you buy a property, particularly one nobody obviously gave a damn about for decades, and want to do something with it to make yourself and local government some money, employ some workers, and make the property a modern productive functioning place, why is that a problem?



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...