Historic Preservation infringing on Personal Property Rights?

The federal government is making a huge investment in Downtown Salt Lake City with their expansion of the Federal Courthouse located to the West of Main Street on 400 South. But this expansion is having some negative repercussions on local merchants in the area. Mainly, Port O'Call bar and restaurant owned by Kent and Janette Knowley. More on this story in the coming days. One of the themes this story boils down to is government infringing on personal property rights, presenting the following question:

Does is historic preservation need to infringe on personal property rights?

This is an ongoing problem that has presented itself in development stories Utah Stories has covered. The most recent example of this problem has presented itself with the expansion of the Federal Courthouse in Downtown Salt Lake City and their ensuing battle against GSA (Government Services Administration). This is a story we have been working on (off-and-on) for nearly one month. It seems that many of the same themes found in this story were also found in the story of the Sugar House Granite Block.

The progression of the problem usually goes something like this:

1. Building owner invests in blighted area wanting to improve a historic old structure


2. As a result of property owner investment- local community emerges and area becomes successful and flourishing


3. State Historic Preservation Offices comes calling wanting to get the building on the historic registry


4. Owner says thanks but no thanks, because owner sees the obvious conflict in not being able to make improvements and additions to his property as he wishes


5. Owner invests in his property but then becomes ultimately limited by the government on what they will allow him to do


6. Owner feels his constitutional personal property rights and infringed upon by the historic mandates and laws the government is shoving down his throat.

In the case of Craig Mecham the developer and owner of the Sugar House Granite Block, he decided to tare down the beloved block and build his own mixed-use retail community. In his case it could be argued that the great local retailers was every bit as responsible for the success of the block as he was. Therefore, I think that the merchants and residents had a right to complain when he decided to tare down his old buildings. Of course the buildings are his, however he had an obligation to his community to demonstrate his commitment to build in a manner fitting to the area.

In the case of the Federal Courthouse expansion project: Port O'Call, is being forced out by a government eminent domain case. Both cases are similar in that the owners feel the government's policies are stifling their entrepreneurial spirit and personal property investment.

The question comes down to where do personal property rights end in the case of owning historic buildings? Obviously, property owners should have a conscious to the local community and their wishes to protect history and sense of place. However, should it be the government's job to mandate this conscious? If the government does mandate and legislate an owner to preserve the historic character of their building at what point do their mandates become socialistic and unconstitutional?

This is a very difficult question to answer. In politics this is a very defining issue between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans. Republicans believing in more rights for owners, Democrats typically believing in more rights for the Government to protect buildings and property that can be labeled as historic. I've always been in favor of historic preservation, however I believe strongly in personal property rights and freedom.

Monday or Tuesday Utah Stories will be releasing our investigation into the Federal Courthouse expansion project. Its a story that has been a fascinating study about how Federal Government Powers have trampled over the property ownership rights of the owners of the Port O'Call, Jannette and Kent Knowley.