Guest Opinions Guest Opinions (August 13, 2004)

As the city council gets ready to vote on a historic preservation ordinance, the argument between residents over whether it should be mandatory or voluntary continues.

Voluntary ordinance will allow demolition of landmarks

By Nick Perry

Review before demolition.

Those three words are key to the success of our preservation ordinance and the future of Mountain View's historic landmarks.

Not prohibition of demolition. In some cases, demolition may be the only viable option.

And certaintly not prohibition of remodeling and expansion. Both are necessary to make our historic landmarks fit modern needs.

What we do need is review before demolition. And when I say demolition, I only mean demolition of the part of the building people see from the street, the public façade. The part that stands as a symbol of our history, adds character to a street, or even defines an entire neighborhood.

But with the voluntary ordinance our city council is on the verge of adopting, we will return to the days when our landmarks were demolished without any public review, any study of their significance, or any thought given to alternatives.

Those who say completely voluntary preservation will work haven't studied this city's history. Nearly 20 percent of the 90 landmarks listed in "Now and Then," the 1979 report on Mountain View's architectural heritage, are gone. At least six landmarks faced demolition prior to adoption of our temporary ordinance in 2002. Back then, a landmark built in 1870 and a tract home built in 1970 were treated no differently when it came to getting a demolition permit.

Take for instance, the Coville-Bailey House. Built in 1890 on Pioneer Way by one of Mountain View's pioneer families, it was on both the city and county's historic inventories. In 1977, it faced demolition. But the city made a pact with its owners that promised they would preserve and eventually relocate the house. Voluntary preservation at work, right?

Wrong. In 2000, a demolition permit was issued for the Coville-Bailey House. No review of the structure's significance was completed. The council, the planning commission and the public weren't notified. By the time I rediscovered the 1977 pact to save it, as the song goes, they had paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Most cities in this county have preservation ordinances that prevent such scenarios and each is unique. What they all have in common is some type of review before demolition. Even Palo Alto's voluntary ordinance requires review; the review's recommendations are the voluntary part.

Without review before demolition, Mountain View's ordinance will be ineffective. But that's exactly what those seeking to demolish our historic landmarks want. Under the guise of property rights, they have convinced the council into favoring the most ineffective historic preservation ordinance in the Bay Area.

If the council adopts such an ordinance, the last two years of discussion will have been almost pointless. At its heart, historic preservation is supposed to prevent the needless demolition of a city's landmarks. Without review before demolition, we are inviting their destruction.

Let's not short-change the value of our landmarks by allowing those who seek to demolish them to dictate how we should work to preserve them. Our landmarks are priceless. Let's not become one of the few cities to let them be razed without review.

Nick Perry is a Mountain View resident and a member of the Mountain View Preservation Alliance.

Mandatory preservation is unfair to property owners

By Austin Spencer

I have been a resident of Mountain View for more than 85 years. I have watched Mountain View property owners maintain the charm and beauty of our neighborhoods without the bureaucracy that a mandatory ordinance would bring. Mountain View is appealing because we have always had architectural diversity and relied on the taste and good judgment of homeowners.

Proponents of mandatory preservation want you to believe that if a voluntary ordinance is passed "the bulldozers will start rolling and all our historic homes will be demolished." This is simply not true.

If there is to be a new preservation ordinance for Mountain View, it should allow neighborhoods to meet the current needs of property owners. Many older homes are significantly smaller than newer homes, were designed for different lifestyles, and in many instances, were built with substandard materials. An ordinance should discourage out-of-character development and offer meaningful incentives for renovation of historic buildings to ensure their continued usefulness and longevity.

As the owner of a home covered under the interim ordinance, I have already experienced the negative impact of those mandatory regulations. Ninety-three structures have already been placed on the city's temporary historic register. For all of these property owners, this process raises privacy and property rights issues and has a significant financial impact.

The goal of the Mountain View Neighborhood Preservation Association, of which I am a member, is to assist the city of Mountain View in adopting a historic preservation ordinance based on voluntary participation. We want to identify appropriate and realistic incentives to encourage neighborhood preservation in our city.

I believe that Mountain View deserves a historic preservation ordinance that is easy to interpret and is equitable for all residents. It should provide a cost-effective process for all owners to preserve and remodel and not isolate one group for disparate treatment.

It is not fair to force a small subset of owners and prospective homebuyers to endure higher costs and greater restrictions for the intangible benefit of the community, while the community contributes nothing. We all know about the current budget shortfalls and the resulting cutbacks. Can the city afford to offer any real incentives to offset the costs for targeted properties? Will the Mountain View Preservation Alliance and other interested groups raise funds for projects?

If the city and community want to save history, they need to get involved. A good example of this cooperation is the Rengstorff House restoration. The Rengstorff family played a major role in the economic development of Mountain View. Their house was purchased in 1979 by the city of Mountain View. It was eventually moved to its present site in Shoreline Park and restored with the help of a preservation group called Friends of the Rengstorff House. For historic preservation to be successful, everyone needs to contribute.

Austin Spencer owns 696 California St., which is on the city's register of historic resources.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.