Comment
How Much History Should We Preserve?
When people think of Dayton, we're sure that one word comes to mind more than any other: "historic". In fact, "Historic Dayton" has long been the town's tag line.
Should this building be subject to the full force of Dayton's historic preservation rules? RIght now it is.
In about three years, this one will be too.
The preservation and presentation of Dayton's history is enormously important, to both the town's identity and its attraction for tourists. All of us who live here should be very grateful for the extraordinary efforts of the people who worked on the restoration of the Dayton Historic Depot, the Columbia County Court House, the Liberty Theater and the rebuilding of Dayton's Main Street in the early 1990s. They, along with the many homeowners and commercial building owners who have restored their properties, have made Dayton one of the most beautiful historic small towns in America.
In 1992, the Dayton City Council passed an historic preservation ordinance that created a Local Historic Register. The Register offers many benefits to owners of historic properties. It is a valuable tool which provides for a property tax abatement after restoration work. And being on the Historic Register gives homeowners a justifiable sense of pride.
But caution is in order. The very first paragraph of Dayton's historic preservation ordinance starts out as follows:
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the identification, evaluation and protection of historic resources within the City of Dayton in a positive, non-restrictive manner, as prescribed within the Dayton Comprehensive Plan and without conflict with community economic development goals . . .
While we believe that historic preservation is vital to Dayton, we also believe that some of the spirit of that clause has been lost, especially when it comes to historic districts.
Earlier this year, the owners of Croft's Floral in downtown Dayton submitted plans to the City to rebuild their lower storefront, which currently has a deeply inset entrance. Their intent was to install new windows and a new entry door, creating a storefront nearly flush with the sidewalk. Their plans would not only provide more energy efficiency, but also more space in their store and a more visible display area in their front window.
Because their building lies within the Dayton Downtown Historic District, Croft's owners needed a Certificate of Appropriateness from Dayton's Historic Preservation Commission before they could receive a building permit. When they presented their plan, it was rejected by the Commission.
When we asked members of the Dayton Historic Preservation Commission about their decision, we were told that the current exterior of the buildings housing Croft's and State Farm Insurance (shown at left below) was put on in the summer of 1958. Because that exterior is now more than fifty years old, and because the work that was done – which included the removal of the buildings' second stories – is considered an historic event in the life of Dayton (it was covered extensively in the Dayton Chronicle), historic preservation rules require that those buildings must be preserved as they now look. This is true even though they in no way fit the overall historic look of the neighborhood.
The former home of the Palus Museum and McDonald Zaring Insurance on the northeast corner of Second and Main Streets (shown at right below) was built in 1963. According to current rules, when that building turns 50 – in a little over three years – it too will be subject to all the restrictions of Dayton's historic preservation rules.
We accept that the decision made by the Commission regarding the Croft's building complies with the rules as they are now written. The City of Dayton's historic preservation rules are modeled on those developed by the State of Washington Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation, which focus heavily on preserving the appearance of buildings and other sites in the state that are 50 years old or older.
However, we believe it's time for the Dayton City Council to take a fresh look at those nearly 20-year-old rules. Historic preservation ordinances place a severe restriction on the property rights of owners of buildings in historic districts, who can't opt out. We think new rules are in order that focus only on buildings that fit the overall historic context of the neighborhood, and not simply on all of those that happen to be 50 years old and tell an interesting story.
We don't presume to have the answer to the question posed in the title of this column. But we do know that the answer must come from the community as a whole, not just the members of the Historic Preservation Commission or the historic preservation gurus in Olympia.
Several businesses have closed recently on Dayton's Main Street, and the number of empty store fronts is embarrassingly high. Historic preservation rules that put the economic vitality of Downtown Dayton ahead of its value as a collection of interesting artifacts are needed now more than ever.