Home

I encourage preservation of historic buildings but do not feel that mandatory preservation is a necessary, appropriate or fair way to do it. Preservation should be voluntary.

First, the complaint that the current system is not working may not be true. The Pilot just told us how Curt Weiss and Mark Elliot are now preserving their registered properties. Where is the failure? The Harbor redevelopment is the only controversy I can recall, but popular opinion would not support that was a failure. Are there others? The Steamboat Bed & Breakfast and the adjoining cottage are two properties we could lose. But the Bed & Breakfast isn't historic, and the cottage is so maimed by interior remodels as to be structurally unsound. Where's the failure?

Historic Routt County (HRC) said historic preservation is attracting few volunteers. Well, why is that? Are your standards realistic? Or even punitive? Relaxing local standards might allow a lot of us to get on board. The Pilot implied Mark Elliot's job was a breeze, so maybe that's happening. I hope the strict, sobering stories I've heard are a thing of the past.

Second, many old buildings will be problematic to preserve. As a structural engineer, I've seen them - inaccessible crawl spaces, sagging walls and floors, magic rafters that should have collapsed long ago, crumbling rock foundations. Simply insulating old buildings can be very costly. The majority of historic buildings lived this long because of very poorly insulated roofs that melt snow, like an expensive heated driveway. Adding normal insulation to the old "magic" roofs carries a risk. The extra snow accumulation could collapse or damage the roofs during winter. Often as not, historic owners are paying the extra heating costs rather than spending the money to restructure the roof and walls (per today's code) for the new, insulated snow loading. We all know energy costs will rise dramatically. For many homes older than 50 years, it will eventually make better sense to re-build.

Third, that's all quite a burden for a property owner to keep "as is" for another 50 years so you can enjoy looking at his old house. Is the city going to help with those heating bills in 2025? No. Will it help with a failing structure? A residence might get $20,000 in state tax breaks and avoid the city tax on materials. That's little incentive. And with mandatory preservation, who in their right mind would buy such a problem? While other homes enjoy value increases, mandatory encumbrances on an historic property could make it less marketable than a vacant lot.

Fourth, there's a lot of angst about downtown character mixed in this discussion. Proponents of historic preservation use "McMansions next door" in their reasoning. But even with this ordinance, poor character and McMansions could still occur on all the non-historic lots. It would be smarter to guide downtown character via FAR (floor area ratio) and better design guidelines. Durango recently won national acclaim in that realm. If we're upset about character, we should follow Durango's lead.

Finally, the proposed ordinance, while aimed at history, is also aimed at people's homes. This is not some investment property. It's incredibly unfair to have our home, our life's pride, and the core of our security unwillingly made a part of the government's portfolio. How can HRC use community character to say the people inside a home matter less than its exterior? Do the current history and contributions from that home really matter less than the faded history of its ghosts?

Steve Lewis

Steamboat Springs