Landmarks

July 19, 2008 08:36 pm

— The city of Logansport really should enact some regulations to protect its historic buildings from being torn down.
If you doubt that, just talk to any of the local residents who still mourn the loss of the historic railroad depot more than 25 years ago.
Or how about the old courthouse or the old Logansport High School or any of countless other buildings that folks around here can now see only in pictures and fond memories.
This is not to say that old buildings should never be torn down.
Certainly, there comes a time when a building has been neglected to the point that there is no saving it.
Still, its historic architecture is one of Logansport’s great assets. It’s one of the things that sets this city apart from other cities its size.
The city should do all that it can to protect all of its assets, and that should include enacting an ordinance that allows local residents adequate notice that one of its landmarks might soon meet the wrecking ball.
How much notice is adequate?
The city plan commission voted last week to ask for a year. A majority of city council members have already indicated they think six months is too long.
We won’t wade into that debate other than to say that the notice should be long enough to allow to get organized if they’re inclined to do so.
We understand the arguments these buildings in many cases are private property.
The owners frequently are individuals who have bought a piece of property with a specific plan in mind. It’s their property, they argue. Why shouldn’t ,they be able to do what they want with it?
Our response is that a building that has been in the community for generations becomes a public asset. The entire community has a stake in what happens to it.
Does that mean that the city should offer some sort of tax break to the developer while folks debate over a building’s future?
In the short-term, maybe. A developer who buys a property now could make an argument that he could not reasonably have anticipated delays created by an ordinance that passes the city council next month.
Of course, that won’t be the case for a developer who buys a historic structure sometime after such an ordinance became law.
The bottom line is that the city has a responsibility to protect its architectural heritage. This ordinance is an essential tool in that effort.