I would like to response to the recent article on Heritage Designation in Ontario (REM, May).

The article concedes that “the protection of our past is a laudable aim” yet it never once illustrates how or why it is laudable.  The protection of our past requires actual, tangible tools and measures. Platitudes alone won’t cut it. Tools need to be in place so that the very buildings and sites that form our heritage can actually be protected — otherwise, there is no real point to the effort.

One sometimes hears the phrase, “No one is gonna tell me what I can do with my property.” Oh really?  All of us deal with certain ‘restrictions’ on our property rights every single day — zoning bylaws, sign bylaws, property maintenance standards, building codes, fire code, etc. etc.  Why do these rules exist? To protect the public interest while still protecting the right of the property owner to enjoy and benefit from their property. 

Regardless of what some might wish for, no one has an unfettered right to maximize profits or return on their property at the expense of their neighbours or the public good. Property ownership has obligations as well as benefits — one obligation being not to negatively impact the greater public good.

Most of us accept some restrictions as a routine part of property ownership in a modern society. However, when it comes to heritage, some people’s hackles go up. Why?  In the context of heritage preservation, I think a problem rests with people’s perceptions. Some still don’t recognize the value of heritage conservation. Some people still don’t recognize that heritage preservation is in the public interest. It seems that everyone has embraced and accepted the value of environmental protection but it is still taking time for some to recognize that cultural heritage must also be protected.

Compounding matters is the amount of confusion and misunderstanding about conservation tools like heritage designation. A grandiose mythology has evolved over the years about heritage designation. Many perpetuate the myth that heritage designation is terribly restrictive — it is not.  For every instance of a heritage board saying “no” to an alteration, I can cite dozens of instances where they say have said “yes” without issue.  Heritage boards generally bend over backwards to accommodate property owners. Also, most of the so called “horror stories” about the “heritage police” that I’ve heard over the years are either grossly exaggerated, are based on false assumptions, or refer to strict heritage covenants in some European cities that don’t apply here at all. 

Ironically, until very recently, heritage laws in Ontario were considered the weakest in North America. Even since the passage of the most recent amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, under Bill 60, heritage provisions are still far less restrictive than zoning bylaws, building codes and the like.

There has to be a fair and reasonable balance of rights. Heritage policy in Ontario strikes that balance.  No bundle of rights triumphs to the detriment of the other.  Nothing in the Ontario Heritage Act “rides roughshod” over property rights — certainly no more than the building code, environmental protection laws, zoning bylaws, official plans, tree cutting bylaws and the like.  People routinely accept bylaws that regulate where we can park our cars, when we can water our lawns in the summer months, where strip clubs and massage parlours can be located, even how to dispose of “abandoned refrigerators”… then why not a bylaw that awards even a limited measure of protection to our vulnerable heritage buildings and sites?

The article claims that buildings can be called “heritage” without clearly defined criteria. This is not correct.  A set of heritage criteria is mandatory under the Ontario Heritage Act. Properties cannot be designated without it. Properties cannot even be listed without it. Even most plaquing programs, for that matter, require criteria.   Recent changes to the Heritage Act require a common set of criteria for the whole province.

Heritage designation is never used to freeze or prevent the alteration or expansion of a building or site. It simply introduces a mechanism to review the proposed changes beforehand — keeping heritage impacts in the equation, where appropriate. The process ensures that heritage features and other “character defining” elements on the property are not damaged, destroyed or obscured unnecessarily.

Compared to the building permit process, site plan approvals, re-zoning and a variety of other urban planning and building requirements, the heritage review process is usually very routine and with a minimum of red tape. 

Also, property owners do not have to restore their exteriors unless they want to do so.  The reference of the owner of a Port Hope florist shop being required to restore the front façade implies that designated property owners are obligated to restore their properties and spend excessive amounts of money. Heritage designation does not obligate property owners to restore their buildings — not ever.  Heritage designation only requires that major alterations are at least sympathetic to the heritage character of the building, and that is all.

The author claims that most insurance companies don’t want to take the risk with heritage homes. This is not an accurate statement.  Don Forgerson, vice-president of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, says the “vast majority” of companies insure heritage properties and homes more than 50 years old. (Heritage Canada Magazine, 2004).

Insurance companies have specific concerns about all older buildings (essentially any building older than 50 years). They often require property owners to replace old wiring, replace shingles and rectify plumbing problems — as they relate to all older homes — not specifically heritage or “heritage designated” buildings, but all old buildings.

Heritage designation has no bearing on the cost of insurance.  Designation does not obligate a property owner or an insurance company to restore or replicate any heritage attributes lost or damaged by fire, flood, vandalism or other calamity. Lost heritage attributes do not have to be replaced “in like kind and quality” under any heritage designation.  There is no obligation on anyone to re-construct a fire-gutted building using 19th-century post and beam construction, peg joinery or to replicate expensive marble fireplaces and plaster medallions.  At best, an owner may want to construct a modern representation of lost exterior features. They are free to do so and nothing would prevent them from using readily available modern materials and construction methods.

The case referring to the pre-development archaeological survey is a red herring in my opinion. Archaeological surveys do not result in development blocks — at least not in Ontario.  If archaeological resources are discovered generally they are documented and removed from the site, and then development proceeds unfettered.   Also, I have yet to hear of a situation where a homeowner had to pay $25,000 for an archaeological survey as implied in the article.  A land development company might have to expend such an amount before a plan of subdivision can be approved, but not a simple homeowner.

The suggestion that heritage designation is deleterious to real estate values is also incorrect and this has been thoroughly borne out by several recent empirical studies in both Canada and the United States. These studies demonstrate that heritage designation either has no effect on land values at all or it actually improves property values. 

The most recent study of this nature is by Professor Robert Shipley at the University of Waterloo.  The study confirmed that over the past 30 years, heritage buildings in Ontario had performed much better than average in the market place and that the prices of heritage houses were not affected by downturns in the real estate market. 

A 1999 study commissioned by Rutgers University and the University of Texas at Austin, discovered that property values in Texas cities actually increased by as much as 20 per cent when the properties studied had historic designations. 

Heritage preservation is money in the bank too — just consider the positive economic and tourism spin offs of responsible heritage programs in communities like Kingston, Perth, Port Hope, Cobourg, Port Perry, old Montreal, Markham/Unionville, Quebec City, Niagara on the Lake and St. Jacobs. Heritage adds value to these communities.  People visit these communities, they spend money, they come back again and again — because of the unique character and identify that each of these thriving communities present. 

Countless studies have been done on the positive impacts of heritage conservation in North America. For example, a 1999 study sponsored by the State of Georgia entitled, Profiting from the Past: The Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Georgia proved that: a) historic preservation creates jobs; b) historic preservation enhances property values; c) historic preservation revitalizes communities; d) historic preservation increases tourism. 

Heritage conservation programs, policies and heritage designation are the tools that make it happen.  Heritage conservation stimulates urban renewal, tourism, and economic growth. Heritage conservation has a positive impact on the quality of life. 

Provincial land use policies obligate municipalities to conserve significant cultural heritage resources. The Ontario Heritage Act has been beefed up. Most municipalities have heritage conservation policies in their official plans.   I would contend that the majority of citizens in Ontario support heritage conservation programs in their communities. In the final analysis, heritage conservation is here to stay.

 

Jim Leonard

Brampton, Ontario