Heritage remains a fiery issue
A sensible policy must recognize our city has both a past and a future.
That there’s a distinction between truly historic buildings that should be preserved, and run-of-the-mill old ones, often neglected or abandoned, that are accidents waiting to happen.
To be effective, there has to be a viable financial plan for preserving a heritage building, attractive to the property owner. To simply expect a private developer to eat the cost of preservation and restoration out of the goodness of his or her heart, is unrealistic.
The partial subsidies the city now offers for preservation work are a good idea but practically speaking, often provide little incentive for a developer whose real interest is in demolishing the site and redeveloping the property.
In the end, the issue comes down to who will pay and more specifically, how much are taxpayers willing to pay to preserve our past?
Just as developers have a legitimate role in keeping our city growing and vital, politicians have a legitimate role in galvanizing the community to preserve real landmarks.
But abusing the heritage process to harass a developer for the sake of a few local residents who unreasonably want a property preserved, discredits the process.
Ditto using heritage designation as a bludgeon to demand unreasonable concessions from the property owner.
More....
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2011/01/07/16805861.html
