Historical preservation is a worthy cause, but advocates neglect the cost

When one group imposes a cost and someone else gets stuck with the bill, it’s easy for an unjust situation to arise. Historical preservation in Philadelphia is one such system.

The city and preservation nonprofits have created a structure of unfunded mandates imposed through the historical preservation bureaucracy, and they refuse to acknowledge there might be any trade-offs or negative consequences to their actions.

Buildings are listed without their owners’ consent — and often in defiance of their owners’ wishes — by an appointed committee of experts and city officials. Once a building is listed, owners are required to seek the Philadelphia Historical Commission’s approval for any changes to the exterior, and all such changes must be done with an eye toward preserving historical character — as determined by the commission.

That adds time and cost to any renovation. Who pays? Not the city. That cost is foisted completely on the property owner.

» READ MORE: Philly’s missed opportunity to fix asbestos problems in schools | Kyle Sammin

Of course, it is good for a city as old as Philadelphia to have some method of preserving its past, and it is understandable that the reformers who ran city government in the 1950s added a historical commission to the municipal structure. But just because something is high-minded and well-intentioned does not mean it is without costs.

Considering those costs does not mean opposing the ultimate goal. In fact, it can help to further that goal by creating a system that works for everyone.

When I spoke with Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia leaders, as part of a recent meeting between the group and The Inquirer Editorial Board, they noted (correctly) that governments impose costs on property owners all the time in ways that few could find objectionable. After all, we have building codes that mean construction costs more, and we have requirements to make commercial buildings accessible for disabled people.

The difference is that building codes are about preserving human life — literally keeping buildings from falling on us. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is not usually a matter of life and death, but it is a matter of fairness and equal access for people with disabilities, a goal society found important enough to make law.

Historical preservation, while certainly desirable, does not rise to the same level of essential safety or basic justice. It’s good. It’s nice. It makes the city more livable and pleasant. But is it so crucial that we should use government force to impose it and then pass along the bill?

» READ MORE: On Sixers arena and beyond, Philly must dream big | Kyle Sammin

When I asked this question, David Brownlee of the Preservation Alliance suggested that people deserve more than simply the right not to be killed by the buildings in their city. It’s a fair point. But it does not answer the question of cost.

Many people deserve many things, but simply decreeing them by law does not bring about utopia.

Balanced against these added costs, we have issues that were less prominent when the Historical Commission was created in 1955. Housing prices have been rising in recent years, due in large part to reluctance to add density where it is needed. Philadelphia is not as overpriced as New York or Washington, D.C., but people here are still feeling the squeeze. Historical preservation is just one more requirement that adds costs.

Other cities have thought about this problem. Baltimore’s historic preservation system includes a tax credit, but even this requires the owners to pay for the improvements first. There are also federal tax credits for buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. But these are all more applicable to businesses than to private homes and are useless to charitable organizations that are already tax-exempt.

» READ MORE: Josh Shapiro ran like a moderate. He should govern like one, too. | Kyle Sammin

Unelected commissions and outside groups add restrictions, and it’s up to the property owner to deal with it. Does it make it more expensive for the owner to maintain? Does it raise the cost of housing even further? Preservationists have made sure that’s not their problem. When the bills come due, they’re already moving on to the next property. And, of course, when preservation stands in the way of powerful interests that could actually afford to pay, they’re just allowed to bulldoze the buildings anyway, as in the expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center in 2008.

Can we find a way to make historical preservation work in a way that doesn’t displace the poor and doesn’t unfairly encumber owners who can’t afford it?

When any new construction is proposed, voices across the region all demand that some units be set aside for affordable housing. Why not do the same with historic preservation? If one house is encumbered, then require that those doing the encumbering create an affordable home to match. And if the city is forcing people to pay more for historically appropriate renovations, the city should be on the hook for the increase in cost.

Historical preservation is a worthy cause, but just because something is good does not mean we can close our eyes to the costs and injustices of it. If preservationists want to live up to their lofty ideals, they must recognize the unintended effects of their actions — and start to bear some of the expense they impose on others.