A historic battle?

Preservation by authorities not a simple answer

Maybe residents of Fayetteville are just used to expecting that their municipal government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. Don’t cut down that tree.

No, the tree you want to plant is invasive, so we prefer you plant this other one.

You want to build a gas station? Sure, just put the building up against the road and the pumps back behind it where nobody can see them.

Live near a stream? Oh, here’s the list of things you’re not allowed to do on your own property.

Every city has rules and regulations, but it can be argued Fayetteville is a little less hesitant to use municipal government as a tool for conformity to whatever the favored policies of the day happen to be.

So maybe that’s why, when word spread that an old, once-stately home in the Washington-Willow Historic District had been sold, those who appreciate the role of structures in preserving a community’s history, charm and sense of place immediately began talking as if city government leaders had some responsibility to step in.

The Stone-Hilton House has been present at Lafayette Street and Willow Avenue since 1879, a little more than 50 years after Fayetteville became a city and just a few years after the Fayetteville School District was formed and the college that would eventually be known as the University of Arkansas was founded.

As structures go, this one has earned a rightful place in local history. With the new ownership, however, has come uncertainty about its future. Its exterior appears to be in awful condition. The home has clearly suffered from a lack of upkeep for years. Nearby neighbors and preservationists fear a new owner may prefer to clear the land and build a home or homes more suited to modern living.

Allowing its demolition would gut Fayetteville’s reputation as a place that embraces and preserves its history, some of the concerned have said.

The city does, indeed, have a lot of architectural history, blessedly so. But how much of that has come through the direct intervention of municipal government?

Most of the great architecture and buildings of historic significance are in private hands, whether on Mount Nord or near the university or downtown. To a great extent, the property owners have been the ones to carry the burdens of owning older structures.

Some, however, quickly started calling for government intervention, saying Fayetteville should stop any action that would rob the town of one of its longtime residences. The trouble for them, however, is that Fayetteville has long appreciated its historic structures and has long encouraged their preservation, but has never adopted any measure that creates the power to preserve structures solely on the basis of their historic status.

Under Arkansas law, cities can adopt historic districts that have strong controls over properties within their boundaries, even private properties. That’s been discussed before, at least until assertions that private property rights should be respected even at the price of potentially losing some local history.

It’s a familiar tale: Few care about a structure’s preservation until there’s a perceived or real threat to its continued existence. Then, the anguished cry out that “someone” ought to do something.

It’s certainly not wasted breath. Take, for example, the Thaden House in Bentonville. Few people knew or cared about its history until it was bought and slated for demolition. The public concern then convinced the new owners to preserve it. It was dismantled and stored, to eventually be rebuilt at the site of a private school named after the famed aviator Louise Thaden.

In that debate, Bentonville Mayor Bob McCaslin said it wasn’t the city’s place to put restrictions on private property owners.

“If you want to buy it and bulldoze it, go for it,” he said. “It’s America.”

Back in Fayetteville, about 15 residents recently attended a meeting of the Historic District Commission, a panel most residents probably don’t even know exists. They were reminded that private property owners have rights, particularly in a town that hasn’t taken the steps to be more regulatory in its historic areas.

Recent legislation at the state level makes such regulations even less likely. Passed in 2015, the Private Property Protection Act would require city government to compensate property owners who prove a government’s action reduces property values by 20 percent or more.

Historic preservation regulations have often increased property values by ensuring the value of a historic area, taken as a whole, cannot be diminished by the acts of a few property owners. Still, it’s hard to project what the immediate impact in Fayetteville would be.

If advocates for preservation want to push for regulation, they have every right to do so. Our sense is they would come up against another thread in Fayetteville’s rich history — that of intense public debate over issues of community importance.

Who would win that battle? History favors the property owners.