Bill would limit cities' ability to designate historic landmarks

AUSTIN -Texans could find it easier to demolish historic buildings and much harder for cities to designate landmarks under a bill considered by lawmakers Tuesday to create statewide preservation standards.

House Bill 3418 would introduce major changes to the landmark process by limiting the availability of protected status as "historically important and significant" to the residences of historic figures and places where a "widely recognized" historic event occurred.

The measure does not define what kind of event would qualify as widely recognized.

Under existing law, local governments enjoy broad discretion to decide how buildings and neighborhoods are preserved, and local authorities can set their own criteria for historic status.

The bill by Houston Republican Rep. Gary Elkins potentially could threaten already-protected buildings by giving authorities just 30 days to approve or deny property owners' requests to demolish or alter buildings, sharply limiting opportunities for review. If no response is given within that time frame, a request to tear down a historic building would be considered approved by default.

The bill also would require city councils to approve any zoning changes to designate places as having historic, cultural or architectural importance with a three-fourths super-majority of all members. Existing state law requires a three-fourths vote only in cases where at least 20 percent of property owners affected by a proposed zoning change have filed a protest against it.

The House Committee on Urban Affairs left the matter pending Tuesday without taking a vote.

Explaining his bill at Tuesday's hearing, Elkins said he did not oppose the designation of historical sites but wanted to balance those efforts with concerns from property owners about current preservation practices.

"We're not trying to remove the local historical factors in our cities," Elkins said. "I know members are receiving emails opposing the bill, but I have heard from many individual citizens who are very much in support. They feel their city picks and chooses historical designations using very subjective standards."

Elkins said some preservationists engage in what he called "historicizing," or exploiting a historic designation status to stymie developers and other private property owners who want to build on or modify existing buildings or land.

"It's an emerging tactic that holds the property owner hostage," Elkins said. "Abuse of those statutes has become prevalent."

He added that he would continue working with supporters and opponents of the bill to address their concerns.

Staunch opposition

Former state Rep. Burt Solomons of Carrollton, who supports the bill, told the committee that he has seen the process take up to nine months before the parties reach a resolution on the property in question.

"There are cases where it goes months and months - it's like wearing (the property owners) out until they agree," Solomons said. "You shouldn't be forced to take less value for your property. This bill does allow for a thoughtful consideration of objective history and facts."

Elkins said the impetus for the legislation was a recent case in Austin involving a circa-1910 house co-owned by Solomons. After the owners applied for a demolition permit, the city's Historic Landmark Commission initiated plans to designate it a landmark. The owners withdrew their application, and the commission subsequently dropped plans to pursue the historic designation.

The bill faces staunch opposition from city and state preservation groups, who say a statewide standard of "widely recognized" historical events likely would exclude various places that hold significance for particular communities.

"This really goes against the nature of what historic preservation is all about, which is keeping communities intact," said Evan Thompson, executive director of the nonprofit Preservation Texas, who added that the wording of the bill could have unintended consequences.

By allowing any place where a historic figure lived to be declared a landmark, buildings where a famous person resided briefly in childhood could be protected, but one where he or she did meaningful and important work over many years excluded, he said before Tuesday's hearing.

The legislation also could disproportionately affect minority communities, where individuals and events may not yet be widely recognized and historical preservation efforts can serve to raise their profiles.

"It takes away the ability of a local community to recognize and preserve what's important to it," said Steve Sadowsky, historic preservation officer for the city of Austin. "Historic preservation is an educational tool," he said. "It's not just to commemorate a person of importance. It can teach about architecture, community history, ethnic and racial history."

Taking the power

David Bush, the acting executive director of Preservation Houston, said the city's criteria for historic designations saved the Kellum-Noble House, the oldest still-standing residence built in Houston, which would not be protected under Elkins' bill. Nathaniel Kellum built the house in 1847, and the Noble family operated one of the area's first schools out of it years later. The city purchased the house in 1899, according to The Heritage Society's website.

"It was either a farm house or a park building. That's what it's been for the most of its history," Bush said. "No widely recognized events took place there. So, does that mean that doesn't qualify to be a landmark?"

He said the bill follows a trend in the Texas Legislature this year where state lawmakers are considering several bills to take power from local elected or appointed officials to make decisions about local rules.

"Significant historic preservation have been local protections. It's something that's under the control of the towns and cities, and this bill would really negate large portions of preservation ordinances across the state," Bush said. "The bill substitutes all those criteria, which would take into account local history, and makes a single defining - vaguely defined - standard. There's no definition. That's part of the problem."

Sky Canaves contributed to this report.