SHOULD SAN DIEGO CHANGE HISTORIC PRESERVATION RULES?

2024-01-28 -

ECONOMISTS YES

The current lack of housing and low level of residential construction warrants loosening the rules. Subjecting buildings that are 45 years or older to historical evaluation is unnecessarily burdensome. Streamlining and simplifying regulations will help stimulate regional development, and this can be done without putting the few truly historic buildings at risk.

YES

Current historic rules run counter to how our city’s neighborhoods can thrive and reinvent. There are certainly many instances of legitimate historic preservation, and creative ways to achieve it. I have been involved in new developments which have achieved great solutions embracing preservation. However, designating a building old because it barely reaches middle age (45 years), or a neighborhood “historic” is, more often than not, historical fiction, redevelopment strangulation and a convenient NIMBY tool.

YES

In fact, the entire country should ease back on historic preservation rules such that we protect unique or historical structures and not just anything deemed old. In Europe, anything less than 100 years old is not old, and you’re not really old unless you go back several centuries. The same is true in Israel where some buildings go back 3,000 years, and here we are fretting about something younger than most of our kids?

YES

San Diego’s rich cultural past absolutely needs to be preserved, but a balance with housing demand should be achieved. When windows cannot be replaced with more energy efficient ones in historically designated areas, the preservation process has clearly gone too far. The city needs to set out criteria that define what is historic value rather than automatically defining it based on a 45-year lifespan alone. This change would give builders more clarity on which projects could proceed.

EXECUTIVES YES

The California Theatre is a perfect example of an old building that has deteriorated into ruins. We need to be pragmatic about what buildings have potential for another life and what are not worth salvaging. The same is true for the wonderful option for underground parking in Balboa Park. We need to acknowledge that times are changing and to do good we may need to modify an historic building to allow it to have a new life.

NO

Instead of harming historical neighborhoods that will destroy community character, legislators should redirect their efforts. Reduce red tape (including fees/taxes/regulations) as well as labor and material costs of building to help cut home construction costs and increase affordability. Streamline approval processes and relax zoning. Create incentives for builders. Obtain inventory of underutilized land for more homebuilding. Reform CEQA and state and local policies to help with environmental and regulatory hurdles that drive up housing costs and timelines.

YES

The genesis of the issue is the financial incentives for designating buildings historic. The city should reduce these benefits and substantially increase the bar for declaring properties historic. We should also consider making such designations revocable based on use and maintenance. Past grants have disrupted viable, needed projects from large buildings to residential properties.

YES

The thought that 45year-old buildings should be reviewed for historic designation is akin to giving tenure to a professor after five years of service. Premature! The California Theatre building downtown is a great example of another problem with current laws — this building has numerous public health and safety risks, including a potential collapse or dangerous fire. The historical status of this building prevents the city from tearing it down. It’s time for change.