Like many non-profit fields, supporters of historic preservation and preservation-based revitalization continue to be influenced by how they were made aware of the importance of historic resources. One typical avenue toward that awareness is the threat of demolition of an important local landmark, a place that contributes to a community’s sense of place – or, as noted urban advocate Ed McMahon calls them, “places of the heart.” When these demolition crises arrive, individuals and organizations mobilize and seek to influence owners to consider alternative paths. If that is unsuccessful, attention often shifts to encouraging local government officials to enact protections for historic resources.

The best advocacy, of course, is of the proactive variety. One of the key benefits of local historic preservation organizations is their ability to work toward creating “environments for preservation.” Such an environment is one where property owners are made generally aware of possible preservation financial incentives, of the importance of individual buildings and houses to downtowns and neighborhoods, and of the possibility of public outcry if they pursue demolition or insensitive renovation.

A real challenge exists when it is the local government itself that is the source of possible demolition. Such is the situation in Mansfield, where the city is pursuing an aggressive demolition program to combat blight, and local preservation advocates are seeking the opportunity to be a part of the process of evaluating the historic integrity and value of targeted structures. In fact, the ability to do so is written into federal law. Click here to read blog entries profiling this situation.

All over Ohio, local governments are using federal stimulus funds to combat the after-effects of the national foreclosure crisis – but in some cases, are doing so in a piecemeal fashion. Without paying attention to long-term neighborhood revitalization strategies, the net result may well be making the situation worse, not better. As the National Vacant Properties initiative has pointed out, simply creating a vacant lot can actually serve as a substantial long-term disincentive for investment in surrounding properties.

What is needed is a dialogue in Ohio communities on the best way to approach revitalization of traditional neighborhoods. What preservation and revitalization advocates can and should do is to seek ways to become a part of that conversation.