Federal tax incentives, combined with local assistance, made possible the rehabilitation of this house in Jonesborough, Tennessee.
James K Reap is an attorney who teaches historic preservation law at the University of Georgia and Georgia State University. He has served on three local preservation commissions and is a member of the board of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. He is president of the Legal Committee of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
By including preservation with other key elements, comprehensive planning fosters better coordination between preservation and other land use controls such as zoning. The Georgia law requires that historic resources be considered along with land use, economic development, community facilities, population, housing, and natural resources.
To protect the public from unsafe conditions, most jurisdictions have adopted codes and standards that specify how buildings are to be constructed and used. These codes focus on new construction and require up-to-date materials and construction techniques. The cost of complying fully with these codes when renovating historic properties can be significant, to the point of making their rehabilitation economically unfeasible. Similar rehabilitation projects in different jurisdictions can vary in cost by as much as a million dollars because of building code differences.
To address this problem, professional associations of building code officials and state governments have developed new code provisions that provide more flexibility in design, materials and construction systems that enable historic buildings to meet standards without reducing the overall level of safety. States with representative legislation in this area include California, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Georgia. In New Jersey, rehabilitation of old buildings increased by 60 per cent following the adoption of a new rehabilitation building code.
In the USA the traditional power of local government control over property and persons is both an advantage and disadvantage. With a 'good' local government in office, the historical and architectural character of a community can be preserved in a way that meets the needs of the community. This is something that would not be possible if bureaucrats in Washington made local decisions. However, in the hands of a local government that lacks vision and favours no restraints
whatsoever on development, local heritage properties are in great danger. In the USA we get the kind of local government - and the kind of preservation - that the majority in a community wants.
This system works well given the country's constitutional framework and history of local self-governance. There are opportunities for improvement, but the model in which the federal government leads by setting standards and providing economic incentives to meet those standards (the carrot and stick), while the power to protect individual properties and districts resides in the level of government nearest the people, is a workable one.
A typical preservation ordinance would generally contain the following key components:
1. Statement of purpose and legal authority
2. Definitions
3. Creation of an historic preservation commission and statement of its powers and duties
4. Criteria and procedures for designating historic properties and/or districts
5. Identification of actions that may be reviewed by the commission (eg demolition or a material change in the exterior appearance of structure) and the legal effect of such review (eg approval, denial, non-binding recommendation)
6. Criteria and procedures for reviewing proposed actions
7. Standards and procedures for addressing 'economic hardship' claims
8. Maintenance requirements for designated properties
9. Appeals procedures
10. Fines and penalties for violation of ordinance provisions.
28
CONTEXT 92 : NOVEMBER 2005