Passage of a Local Preservation Ordinance has popped up on the City Council’s agenda tonight – and in our opinion council members should tread lightly on this ground.

For starters, the ordinance includes reference to a Jamestown Preservation Board, a board that to our knowledge doesn’t yet exist and, frankly, doesn’t need to if we have a city Planning Commission. We don’t need another board or commission when groups that already exist in the City Charter – like the Strategic Planning and Partnerships Commission – are defunct.

Creation of new historic districts or amendments to existing historic districts would have to go through review by the city’s principal planner, the yet-to-be-created Preservation Board, the Planning Commission and the City Council. The ordinance also requires certain types of property maintenance – something that sounds great in theory but could also keep historic properties from changing hands. Why would someone take on something like the Arcade Building, which hasn’t seen serious maintenance in decades, knowing they will be held to a higher standard due to the Local Preservation Ordinance? If the Preservation Board finds that a landmark or structure is undergoing what the ordinance terms demolition by neglect, the city’s code enforcement officer and building inspector would be given the option of repairing the landmark or structure and then billing the property owner. And, the ordinance allows the city to acquire the property by starting condemnation, 19A/B or other court proceedings.

The ordinance also places a much longer delay on a proposed demolition of a derelict historic structure, like the Arcade Building. A single objection can delay the process at least 120 days, during which time the applicant has to come up with a “viable” alternative to demolition. Who pays for this “viable” alternative is, of course, not mentioned in the ordinance.

The Local Preservation Ordinance, as written, should be tabled by the City Council tonight. We should certainly be mindful of preserving our history, but we don’t need this ordinance to accomplish that goal. Rather than encourage preservation, the process the ordinance spells out could just as easily lead to disinvestment in derelict historic structures because prospective property owners won’t want to be on the hook for what the city is spelling out.

Developing buildings like the Arcade Building have always been cost prohibitive. The Local Preservation Ordinance makes those projects even more cost prohibitive while creating a new layer of government that we don’t need.

We hope council members take a step back from this proposal. There’s a better idea to preserve local historic buildings than this ordinance as it is proposed right now.

This ordinance, as written, will be a sign for those considering investing in something like the Arcade Building – that Jamestown is closed for business.