"Preserving Property Rights" in the Gazette 12-19-07

[RobertJudge]

Northampton's Historical Commission has placed a moratorium on the
planned destruction of a home on Nonotuck Street after being told the
residence might have some cultural significance.

Under the city's demolition delay law, that moratorium could last up
to a year if the Historical Commission decides the time is needed to
continue research on the home.

This is the first time the nearly three-year-old law has been applied
to a home in the city, and it demonstrates why this particular
ordinance is so problematic. Even in cases like this, where the
evidence of cultural or historical significance is slim, the city can
deprive an individual of their right to develop property for an
unreasonable amount of time.

The concept of a demolition delay has merit. It can provide a
community with an opportunity to weigh in on the historical or
cultural significance of a structure that is set to be torn down. That
reduces the chances that the city could lose a historical treasure. It
also gives the Historical Commission a chance to work with the
property owner to find possible alternatives to demolition.

The law, which applies to homes built before 1940, is also intended to
give the public an opportunity to influence an owner's decision on the
future of a particular property; the owner, though, is under no
obligation to change plans.

However, the city's ability to impose a moratorium lasting up to a
year opens the way for abuses as well as financial hardships for
property owners. More than 100 cities and towns across Massachusetts
have similar laws, but most of them allow a maximum delay of six
months.

On Monday night, the Historical Commission imposed a demolition delay
on a home at 225 Nonotuck St. Steve Strimer, a local historian, had
raised the possibility that the house might have some connection to
the city's role in the Industrial Resolution. Another possibility is
that it has ties to the city's abolitionist past, including the
Underground Railroad, which was used to help slaves flee from the
South.

The home was built sometime between 1850 and 1860. The current owner
renovated the house and put it on the market, but could find no
buyers. He has now found a developer who wants to use the property for
commercial purposes, under zoning that allows special industrial uses.

Strimer has not presented any evidence of cultural significance. He
has also acknowledged that there is nothing to date that links the
home to the Underground Railroad.

In our opinion, it's unreasonable to impose a moratorium like this
without some evidence of historical or cultural significance. In
effect, the Historical Commission has used the law to allow a fishing
expedition that could last up to a year without producing any evidence
of historic significance. That's a lot of power to cede to local
government at the expense of property owners.

The city adopted the demolition delay law after concerns were raised
about two projects. One involved plans to tear down a house built in
1775 by Noah Parsons, the grandson of one of Northampton's founders.
The other involved plans to tear down a home on Barrett Place, which
contained beams that dated back to the late 1600s. Both were
eventually demolished.

Last year, the law was applied to a couple's plans to tear down an old
dairy barn on Kennedy Avenue. The building's age triggered a review by
the Historical Commission, which imposed a 12-month delay. More than a
year later, the structure is still standing. It's not clear what the
law accomplished in this case, other than to disrupt a family's plans
for its own property.

These kinds of problems arise when a law is enacted in the heat of the
moment. In this case, the city ended up overreaching - to no one's
benefit.

In the case of the home on Nonotuck Street, it shouldn't be so
difficult to determine whether the residence has cultural or
historical significance. This area has already been examined
extensively. The commission plans to take up the matter again in a
month.

In our opinion, one month should be sufficient to determine whether
this home has significance. If no evidence surfaces at the end of the
month, the property owner should be allowed to proceed with his plans.

It's also time to revisit this ill-conceived law and reduce the amount
of time that the city can delay a demolition. It's important to
preserve the city's historic treasures, but it's also important to
preserve the rights of property owners.