Best estimates place the number of localities in Ohio with local design review or historic preservation ordinances at or about 100.  Of these, some 46 are Certified Local Governments, meaning that they have a preservation program in place that meets criteria set forth by federal law, and entitling them to grants issued annually through the Ohio Historic Preservation Office.

One key component of any effective local preservation-based ordinance is a provision dealing with demolition of buildings with historic integrity.  Obviously, demolition is irreversible, and as a result one would think that it would be at least highly discouraged, and at best prohibited absent a showing of extreme economic hardship.  At the same time, demolition is sometimes seen as a bellwether issue for property rights advocates -- as the ultimate in the expression of one’s ability to do as one would like with one’s own real property.

This issue has flavored recent discussion the inner Columbus community of Upper Arlington, which is still working toward the creation of an ordinance to provide some sort of protection against “teardowns” -- an epidemic so prevalent across the country that it has drawn substantial attention from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  In Upper Arlington, the proposed ordinance imposes a six-month mandatory waiting period before a structure may be demolished.  In addition to valid concerns about making the ordinance as objective as possible, and erroneous complaints such as the contention that the ordinance would decrease property values (which runs contrary to almost every study conducted of local protection for historic resources), the property rights issue has arisen.  Because this is a “delay,” however, and not a total prohibition against demolition, task force members state that no property rights would be affected.

Many local ordinances have similar provisions, with various periods of delay, as the primary means of providing protection.  Other ordinances take a different path.  In Tiffin, the local design review ordinance mandates that the local Architectural Board of Review to decline a Certificate of Appropriateness if it finds, after good faith discussions with the property owner about alternatives, that the action would have a negative impact on the district.  This denial is of course subject to an appeal process, consistent with the rights of due process.

It is important to remember in the conversation over property rights and demolition that from the outset, that the concept of property ownership in America has involved both rights and responsibilities.  Effective local ordinances seek to provide a proper balance between the two.

Photo: Dystopos/Creative Commons License