Greenlee: Historic conflicts
By Bob Greenlee
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Arrogance. What other word can describe what Boulder's city council might exercise this Tuesday. The city
might be on the brink of doing something that a few may perceive as laudable and many others would decry as
outrageous and disrespectful of personal property rights.
This issue concerns the plight of Michelle and Michael Clements who own a residential property that houses an
old stone building. The structure is at the center of a controversy concerning whether or not it should be legally
bound by encumbering it with a historic designation. If approved by council -- over the objection of both the
property owners and the city's own staff -- it will be another example of arrogantly absconding with a person's
property for a questionable public purpose.
Not many Boulder citizens seem as concerned about this situation as they were when a couple of outrageous
"adverse possession" cases came to light. But there's little difference between adversely possessing someone
else's property by using the courts as your weapon or using the power of government to exercise "eminent
domain" to extract property from rightful owners. Historic landmarking is nothing more than a land grab by
preservation zealots.
The matter before council this Tuesday is the culmination of a needlessly long, expensive, and offensive
campaign that should never have gotten so out of hand. One of the essential question before council is whether
or not the old stone building meets the purposes and standards of the city's historic preservation ordinance.
Taken in context with its Comprehensive Plan, the city's own policies expressly state that: "Landmark
designation is not intended to preserve every old building in the city" even though Historic Boulder and other
hysterical historic preservationists stomp their feet and raising their fists insisting that council agree with them.
The stone structure is not being threatened with demolition. The current property owners have insisted they will
use whatever legal means are necessary to guarantee that the building will be preserved. The city's own staff
responsible for reviewing all landmark designations and report their findings to the Landmarks Board has
concluded that: "..although the house has sufficient significance to be designated a landmark, designation (will)
not balance private property rights with the public's interest in preserving the city's heritage." The council should
be reluctant to make any historic designation without the consent of the property owner. Historic designations
are rarely made without landowner consent and when done should require a higher standard of historic
significance.
Reality aside, none of this may be good enough for a handful of historic preservation zealots. They will continue
proselytizing about their hypersensitivities and unfounded fears at the upcoming public hearing. So how do
things like this get so out of control? Simple. The council selects individuals to serve on the city's various
boards and commissions who are oftentimes zealots supporting narrow causes and personal agendas.
It's shameful what one of the city boards has imposed on an innocent couple who say they have already spent
upwards of $100,000 trying to get this matter resolved. It's true that you can fight city hall although the cards
are stacked against you when governments use taxpayer funds to fight ordinary citizens. Council should reject
any attempt to landmark a structure unthreatened by demolition and perhaps even unworthy of the concern it
has received. But this is Boulder and you never know how arrogant its elected officials might be. Anything is
possible.
Bob Greenlee was a member of Boulder City Council for 16 years and served his last 2 years as mayor. He
can be reached at: robertdgreenlee@aol.com