Back To News | Back To Standard News
Standard News
Don't deter older communities from getting protections
January 17, 2008
IN ADOPTING RULES to protect historic homes and preserve the character of older communities, Columbia City Council mustn't make it too difficult for neighborhoods to get such protection.On Wednesday, the council will consider a set of temporary rules that would set parameters for tearing down certain homes and structures as well as limit "McMansions" and the aggressive subdivision of lots. The new rules would apply in five neighborhoods that have met requirements set out by the city; others could ask the council to include them in the future.
If the city is serious about preserving communities, it must adopt effective rules. That said, the new rules should strike a balance, giving developers and property owners a clear understanding of what is allowed. The idea shouldn't be to stifle progress.
The rules being considered seem reasonable, although we won't know their impact until they're actually applied. Under the rules, certain homes 50 years old or older can't be demolished without approval from the city's Design Development Review Commission. Any home being considered for demolition will have a sign posted at least 15 days before the final decision. The rules also govern side-yard setbacks for lots that will be subdivided. "McMansions," much taller and bigger homes than those surrounding them, are prohibited.
The restrictions, which apply automatically in neighborhoods designated as historic, can be extended to other neighborhoods upon request. The intent of the temporary rules is to give older neighborhoods protection as they pursue historic designation.
But a recommendation by the Columbia Planning Commission would be a stumbling block to neighborhoods seeking the restrictions. The commission has recommended that 50 percent of property owners in a given neighborhood approve, by petition, before the protections can be requested. Mayor Bob Coble said if the council approves such a provision, it would be tantamount to killing the rules altogether, because the city doesn’t have the staff or lawyers to verify whether all the signatures gathered are legitimate.
If the council truly wants to make a difference, it should stick to its plan of allowing neighborhood associations to decide whether they want to be included. Some neighborhoods want the restrictions to help preserve the look and character of their communities. But others welcome in-fill development and the destruction of run-down homes. That's an important consideration. While preserving neighborhoods is a priority, it's also important to encourage responsible in-fill development that revives ailing neighborhoods, renews the city's housing stock and reduces sprawl.
The tougher stipulation would be asking a community to win an election to receive the protection. And even in elections candidates aren't required to get 50 percent of registered voters; they're simply required to win a majority of the votes cast. We agree with Mayor Coble that no community would be able to overcome such a hurdle.
Considering the city has the final say as to whether the interim protections are granted, neighborhoods shouldn't be put through the wringer to apply.
The State - Opinion