Is Ohio Next?
Have you kept up with the recent proposals coming from the Wisconsin and Michigan legislatures? Legislators in both states have sought to weaken laws when it comes to local design review. In Wisconsin, perhaps the most chilling language in the proposed legislation (you can read the full text here) focuses on what a property owner can do with his/her property:
“A city may not designate a property as a historic landmark without the consent of the owner. A city may not require or prohibit any action by an owner of a property related to the preservation of special character, historic or aesthetic interest, or any other significant value of the property without the consent of the owner.”
Would you think historic buildings would be endangered species in a local historic district? They will, if Michigan and Wisconsin legislators get their way.
Do you read this the way I do? If passed, this legislation would allow the owner of a property in a local district the right to alter or demolish the property, regardless of its historic significance. Which means that maybe the local district’s most important reason for existence, preventing shortsighted demolitions that erode the strength of the district, gets tossed out the window.
In Michigan, the legislature proposes (bill text here) additional hurdles for keeping their local districts in existence:
“A historic district in existence on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection shall dissolve 10 years after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection unless the question of its renewal is submitted to the electors in the local unit at the regular election immediately preceding the date that the historic district would otherwise dissolve and a majority of those electors voting at the election approve the renewal of the historic district.”
So, if you like and want to keep your historic district, not only does it go away as a rule after 10 years, but in order to keep your district you have to convince a majority of voters in your city to grant the district another 10 years of existence. Interestingly enough, when deciding to delist a local district, the legislation doesn’t seem to require the same popular vote hurdle.
So, what’s wrong with private property owner rights? Nothing. But cities need to balance community needs with individual rights. In a historic district, you can’t just protect your investment by keeping your property in great shape. If every owner surrounding your property decided to replace their historic buildings with vacant, weeded lots, what would happen to the value of your property? That could be a real possibility if Michigan’s proposed legislation is allowed to pass.
Whenever I see copycat legislation pop up in nearby states to Ohio, I always wonder when the same proposal may find its way to Ohio. I hope our General Assembly doesn’t have proposed legislation up its sleeve to gut the benefits of our local design districts, but after seeing what’s happening in Wisconsin and Michigan, I wouldn’t be especially surprised to see something like this proposed.
Not to say that this type of legislative initiative will not find its way to Ohio, but our state presents a different challenge for advocates of this sort of change.
Both Wisconsin and Michigan have state-level enabling statutes addressing the ability for municipalities to adopt local historic preservation ordinances; Ohio does not. As a result, not only do Ohio cities adopt such measures under general powers reserved to municipalities, but because there is no statewide enabling legislation they look very different from one city to another. The ordinance in the community in which I live, for instance, governs four different areas with four different sets of guidelines; only two are based on traditional historic preservation standards — and none of them refer to the words “historic preservation” at all.
That’s not a reason to remain less than vigilant, to be sure.
Thomas, well said. Thanks for your comments. Like you say, the goal is to stay vigilant. We’ll continue to encourage Ohioans to maintain positive, pro-preservation relationships with legislators, as much as possible, so we’re not dealing with this type of preservation crisis that catches us off-guard.