City Approves Most Landmark Applications

Praise is due to the city council for approving most of the landmark designations brought before them for approval Monday night. I find antagonism towards the landmark program to be so misplaced that having some of these denied seems like a loss to me, but I recognize that some members of the council and some of the commissioners have picked this issue to highlight as a huge drain on our local gov't revenue. For those who aren't familiar with the program, a rather laborious application must be submitted to the planning department, which reviews and forwards to the state historic preservation office, which makes a recommendation. The planning staff makes a recommendation as well, and brings these before council for approval.

The results of landmark designation? If the property was not already in a local historic district, it comes under Historic Preservation Commission purvey (a 'district of one' if you will.) And - and this is the reason for the hand-wringing - a 50% property tax abatement.

As I've said before, while I'm in favor of this, I don't think it's the right program. I think we should have a more global abatement for all properties in local districts, brought down to a more manageable percentage. (And maintenance of the local landmark program for creating that 'district of one' for properties not in a district-able area.) At a minimum, a reassessment freeze if you're in a local district - for 20 or 25 years or similar. This would have multiple benefits. 1) An offset for those who believe local district review of architectural changes constitutes a loss of property rights/value (although I disagree.) - This pays for that 'loss.' This would make more places that persistently avoid local district status willing to adopt. 2) You mitigate the negative disincentive for investment in historic neighborhoods - I consider it rather perverse that taking a risk on investment in a more threatened neighborhood would be 'rewarded' with a rise in property taxes. 3) The program would reach a broader range of income levels, benefiting homeowners in small, contributing historic houses who couldn't possibly achieve landmark status. The benefits of offsetting increased maintenance costs would make a much larger difference. This would serve to mitigate against real or perceived gentrification.

Like most creative ideas we could implement, we are stuck with what the state allows us to do. The landmark program is allowed by state statute, and we'd have to go to the state to allow us to do something that makes more sense. And that's always a huge challenge.

Nonetheless, I hope at some point we can get a state package approved that allows us to update our ineffective code enforcement/preservation policies with some of the more effective tools used by other cities.

Paschall’s Bakery and Studebaker Building - Approved

Simpson-Umstead House - Approved

Original Watts Hospital Building - Approved.

Webb Thompson House - Approved

Penny Furniture Building - Approved

Durham Laundry Building - Approved

L. D. Rogers Furniture Store Building - Approved

Rogers Drugs Building - Approved

Tempest Building - Approved

Venable Center - Approved

John O’Daniel Hosiery Mill Building - Continued until November [There is no way this should not be a local landmark - evidently the State Historic Preservation Office said that it would not meet the criteria for National Register Listing, which I think is an uninformed decision.]

King’s Daughters Home - Approved

C.C. Taylor Building (115 East Main) - Denied

Johnson-Rogers House - Denied