Discussions over a local preservation ordinance in Jamestown will continue next week.

We’re sure the debate will continue over some of the points we’ve raised in this space over the past week. Taking a step away from what is, in our opinion, a poorly worded, overly punitive, rather restrictive ordinance, there are a bigger series of questions that should be answered before the city Planning Commission and then the City Council vote to approve a local preservation ordinance.

What’s the end game with a local preservation ordinance? What are we looking to save and what is the best outcome for the buildings that city officials are suddenly concerned with saving? What are worthy targets to be saved and what are buildings that realistically have no future?

Here’s why the answers to those questions matter and should be answered before a preservation ordinance is approved. For every building like Ss. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Church or the Marvin House that has actual historic value and are still in a position to have a role in the city’s future, there are other buildings that played a role in the city’s history but aren’t necessarily architecturally significant or noteworthy for anything except their age. For every Furniture Mart building that needs work but is relatively solid, there’s an Arcade Building that realistically is so far gone it’s unlikely to be anything other than an awkward blank space on North Main Street once it’s finally demolished.

So the city’s end game is a valid question as we talk about creating new ordinances, because ordinances have to be applied equally across the board. Depending on how the ordinance is used, the current owners or the future developers of the Furniture Mart and the Arcade Building would have to be treated the same despite the fact they are far from the same building.

Push is coming to shove on the preservation ordinance in large part because of the uncertainty over Ss. Peter and Paul. There is concern the building could be sold and, without protection, end up with a future use that diminishes the building’s place in Jamestown’s history. It’s an understandable concern, but not one that should prompt the Planning Commission and the City Council to act rashly on a 42-page local preservation ordinance that has more holes than East Second Street.

The full ordinance should be considered as the city’s comprehensive plan is developed. That planning process is a better place to answer questions about the future of downtown and the role of historic buildings than rushing the process. A better plan is to enact a modified version of the ordinance that allows, for now, single-use identification of historically significant properties through the city Planning Commission. That would allow the city to act to designate Ss. Peter and Paul and other truly historic sites that everyone can agree should be preserved without extending protections to buildings that are noteworthy for nothing more than their age and state of disrepair.