|
Publication Date: Friday, August 13, 2004 Editorial
Editorial
(August 13, 2004)
City's heritage on the line
When Mountain View reaches its 200th anniversary in 98 years, it will be a momentous event for the city that was founded in 1902 along what are now El Camino Real and the Caltrain tracks. But beyond the appropriately preserved circa-1867 Rengstorff House, what other buildings will be left to illustrate the city's rich heritage that began with orchards and evolved into what we now call Mountain View?
The answer is that very few properties will be preserved if the city council approves a voluntary preservation ordinance next Tuesday.
For the last two years, the city has operated under a temporary ordinance that has effectively stopped efforts by some property owners to demolish historic buildings, some more than 100 years-old. Several owners protested the historic designation and have strongly lobbied the council to make any ordinance voluntary.
But other community members consider a voluntary ordinance a sellout that would allow owners of any historic building to apply for a demolition permit and easily wipe out an irreplaceable link to part of the city's past.
We believe an ordinance that opens the door for demolition of every historic property in the city is unacceptable. It would be tragic to see all, or even part, of the city's history go under the wrecking ball simply because the council lacked the political will to draw up a fair historic preservation ordinance.
The ordinance the council is expected to approve is a starting point, but it is in no way adequate to preserve any buildings. Here are the suggested provisions of a new ordinance, but we hope the council will do more:
* Owners interested in preserving their property can join a program that will provide a property tax rebate of 15 percent from the city, and possibly up to 50 percent from the state through the Mills Act, if the building qualifies.
* A zoning variance, permitting owners to go outside guidelines if they preserve parts of a historic building.
* Possible qualification for a loan program that the city would establish for historic property owners who opt into the program.
The incentives are a good start, but even considering today's property values, it is doubtful that owners who never intended to save their building would be enticed to change their minds.
If the city's true purpose is to preserve a reasonable number of historic buildings, more must be done to compensate owners who opt into the program, and to discourage owners who do not from knocking down the last physical links to Mountain View's historic past. For example, the city could:
* First, develop clear criteria for deciding what buildings are truly historic, with a goal of reducing the list to 50 to 60 properties from the current 93. Many owners on the current list contend their properties are not historic.
* Provide owners who are willing to preserve a building with a much more aggressive tax break, say up to 100 percent of property taxes for 10 to 20 years, even if the city must foot the bill.
* Provide capital for a rolling loan program at attractive interest rates for owners willing to accept the city's historic preservation program. This may take time to develop, but could be a viable incentive to bring more homes into the program.
*Require a thorough review of demolition permit requests for all historic properties to make sure every alternative has been examined.
In our view, the council has resigned itself to accept a voluntary ordinance because of pressure from the affected property owners and because the members cannot envision a viable alternative. But that alternative will never be found unless the council makes a commitment to preserve at least a portion of the city's heritage buildings for those who will celebrate Mountain View's bicentennial in 2102.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
