HERITAGE advocates grieved this month for the loss of two buildings in the City of North Vancouver with a combined age of 205 years. That's a lot of history to crush with a wrecking ball.
Both buildings were in a sorry state. City council reluctantly concluded that without public money or an unacceptable amount of new density, it was unreasonable to demand that the owners restore the homes. But the episodes have spurred the city to make heritage protection a higher priority.
There are some very difficult debates ahead. To simply decree that a list of buildings may not be altered or knocked down will unleash a horde of angry property owners. It will take a lot of legal work to wrest away their property rights. Others will demand an exemption because their building is in poor condition, or already altered beyond recognition, or really not that historically important. Pinning down exactly what "heritage" is will be tough.
Heritage protection boils down to a fundamental question about the powers of the state. Should government be able to dictate what colour your house is? Should it be able to prevent you from knocking down your own house? On the other hand, does an individual have the right to - literally - destroy a part of our history?
The city has largely avoided these problems by using a program of incentives to encourage owners to retain aged structures. The limits of the carrot method became obvious this month, but the stick approach won't be any easier.
