NWA editorial: Proposal of historic proportions

Does preservation require new government process?

The Alf Williams House, located at 310 N. Washington Ave., seen Nov. 10, 2017, surrounded by other historic homes in the Washington-Willow Historic District in Fayetteville. The Fayetteville Historic District Commission has asked city staff to come up with a first draft of a historic preservation ordinance.
The Alf Williams House, located at 310 N. Washington Ave., seen Nov. 10, 2017, surrounded by other historic homes in the Washington-Willow Historic District in Fayetteville. The Fayetteville Historic District Commission has asked city staff to come up with a first draft of a historic preservation ordinance.

Has Fayetteville's idea of good governance gotten so wrapped up in process that neighbors who want to talk about preserving historic structures need a city-issued permit to have those conversations?

Is the city's rather powerless Historic District Commission really hoping to be in charge of residents talking with one another?

What’s the point?

Historic preservation in Fayetteville would be better served by a dedicated, nonprofit approach rather than creation of more government authority over private property.

In a word, yes.

This is part of the fallout from the demolition of the nearly 150-year-old Stone-Hilton house at Lafayette Street and Willow Avenue in August. An out-of-town property owner had the audacity to make a decision about her own property, and it has stuck in the craw of residents who believe they should have a say in such matters.

The Stone-Hilton House sat there deteriorating for years. By the time word spread its owner was considering demolition, it was in awful condition. Riled up, in part, by a social media campaign, some of those who wanted the city to do something about it talked of how they had long wondered about the home's plight. And yet it sat there, falling apart, as modern life went on around it.

Its demolition, even if the building was in terrible shape, nonetheless ripped a hole in Fayetteville's Washington-Willow area, which features an incredible collection of homes big and small that date far back into local history. Let no one be mistaken: Loss of these structures has been and will be a serious loss to the character of the community.

Almost everyone can agree on the goal -- preservation. The contentious part is how to go about doing it.

Historic District commissioners asked the city staff to gather information on possible approaches, and at this stage, it's all discussion and no decisions. That's exactly when people need to get involved. Showing up only on the night of a City Council vote is really the worst time to expect to have a significant influence.

The focal point of discussion at this stage is on a potential city process that would give the commission and neighbors more power to influence anyone who wants to make serious modifications or to demolish anything designated a landmark structure or a collection of buildings considered a landmark district.

Here's how it might work, if the ideas presented a recent meeting were to be adopted:

• Any person, group or association could petition the city to designate a property as "landmark." The commission itself could even initiate such proceedings.

• "Whenever possible," the commission would obtain the consent of the targeted property's owner(s).

• If approved, the commission would notify the property owner and the Planning Commission, which would consider the proposal. Then an approved proposal would go to the City Council, which could approve the designation by ordinance by majority vote or, if any owner of a property set to be designated as a landmark objects, two-thirds of the City Council must approve the designation before it becomes effective.

• At least 51 percent of property owners in a proposed "landmark district" must agree to its designation before the City Council can adopt the designation.

And then what happens? Once the city deems a property a landmark, any work requiring a building permit would also require a "certificate of appropriateness" unless the work would have no "material effect" on the historic nature of the structure. If city staff reject the proposed changes, based on standards established by city ordinance, the Historic District Commission would have 45 days to consider an appeal. Another denial would trigger a 90-day "negotiation period" with public hearings at which anyone could chime in on the proposal and the city, if it wanted, could initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property from the owner.

If all that's put into effect, it looks like city government is getting into the real estate business.

Is Fayetteville really ready for this?

Don't get us wrong: People talking with each other about issues affecting their homes and neighborhoods is a good thing. We wish more of that happened regularly. But can that be accomplished without the strong arm of government intruding?

Does a property owner really need to go through a 90-day public gauntlet before obtaining a permit to make modifications to his property? Are neighbors eager to get government a little (a lot) deeper into their lives?

Garner Stoll, Fayetteville's new director of development services, says he's seen the process work in other cities by persuading property owners that preservation is in their own economic interests and, yes, by creating a bit of peer pressure. In most cases, a negotiating period led to solutions, he said.

It might not have saved the dilapidated Stone-Hilton House, he acknowledged. But neighbors would have learned a lot more about what may have been insurmountable challenges facing that property, and would have had the assurance that any new construction would have to meet standards that would contribute to the historic district, not distract from it.

Some people want more regulation than this measure would produce, because ultimately, if a property owner remains intent on his original proposal, he would get it at the end of that 90-day negotiating period. "With this, all they've got to do is wait the 90 days and do whatever the hell they want to," said Commissioner David Stewart.

We're not sure the outlined process will make anyone happy, because it doesn't give government total control to interfere in a property owner's wishes, but it sets up a process in which the property owner might face 90 or more days of being browbeaten about what he wants to do with his own property.

Neighbors need to talk to each other, but we're not convinced they need a government panel making it happen. How about developing a nonprofit group dedicated to preservation with an active mission of learning everything they can about historically significant properties, and getting to know their owners and working in a positive way to keep everyone informed about preservation options, including grants or tax credits? How about an association that aggressively seeks to know as much as possible about historic properties and what's going on with them?

The first response to the Stone-Hilton controversy should not be an expectation that government is going to take care of everything. There are less intrusive ways to influence the preservation of properties important to the community but remaining in private hands.

Commentary on 11/18/2017

Upcoming Events