Historical Commission Bylaws Border Hysterical

It’s time Reading has a serious conversation about the balance of rights between the private property owner and the town itself.

Reading's bylaws have the bad habit of asserting significant town authority over the rights of private property owners, but few make the point that the town is overreaching as easily as the Historical Commission and its demolition delay bylaw.

The ultimate purpose of the Reading Historical Commission has its place and value. The concept of working with private property owners to protect and preserve buildings of historic significance is a laudable goal.  

For example, preserving the Parker Tavern and protecting some of the colonial era properties on West Street makes perfect sense. "Protecting" some of the more than 250 other properties Reading Historical Commission currently asserts authority over do not.

The Historical Commission’s problem starts with the lack of meaningful definition of what makes a property of “historical” significance in Reading and continues with the commission’s unchecked powers over private property owners.

Here’s how the town determines if a property is of historic significance:  Four well-intentioned neighbors sitting on the Historic Commission board have to agree that your home or building is of potential historic significance.  That’s it. A strict interpretation of the bylaw which provides the commission its authority only requires a simply majority opinion and no burden of substantiated evidence. Property owners have nothing to say about the process or the outcome. In fact Reading has a record of not even making property owners aware their home has been "protected."

Taking this power to the level of the absurd, members of the Historical Commission could legitimately decide that the ubiquitous New England Cape Cod style of home has particular value in Reading. So, every cape could fall under their jurisdiction. This example is only absurd until someone decides it's time to "protect the capes," for whatever reason.

The second, and perhaps larger issue, is what the commission can do if they deem a property to be “potentially” historically important. Under Reading's Historical Commission bylaws, the Town can stop a property owner from substantially renovating or demolishing and rebuilding their home as they choose for up to an entire year. Should a property owner take down even a portion of their building despite an order, the town can withhold issuing a new building permit for two additional years.

Worst all, if the sincere goal of the Historical Commission bylaws is to protect legitimate historic properties, they fail miserably. At best, the demolition bylaws serve as a stall tactic and a way to intimidate property owners into legal and financial hardship and therefore compliance.

In additional to a possibly-overinflated local sense of what has “historic” significance, one can assume a secondary impetus for this bylaw is the unfounded terror that Reading could be overrun by a hoard of McMansion builders who swoop into town to knock down every humble home and build their version of Versailles.

Is Reading really a prime target for McMansion expansion? How often in today’s world do people really look to buy a legitimate historic building if their only goal is to raze it? How many properties do we really have that anyone outside Reading would think of as "historically" significant?

There is nothing wrong with the community wanting to proactively preserve its heritage or manage its growth, but, at some point, Reading has to stop using bylaws to force people into doing what some want at the expense of others.

Bylaws like the one mentioned here not only costs private, taxpaying property owners reasonable dominion over their property, they discourage the average person from wanting to invest in and improve their property. As a result, it limits the town’s ability to legitimately raise tax revenue based on true increased property values which benefits everyone far more than the alternative.

It is time to stop pitting local government against individual members of the community. There’s got to be a better way, one that requires real consideration and respect for the rights of all involved.

We are a smart town. Let’s figure it out.