A collective duty

Heritage costs money,” said the councillor to the residents who had come to Shire Hall asking for a stay of the demolition for two buildings at Wellington’s intersection of Main and Wharf Streets. “Somebody has to pony up.”

The councillor made it clear. In his view, it was the folks wishing to see the 117-year-old building saved, who were required to “pony up” or find someone who would. Another councillor was just as direct: If Pam Carter, Bill Hurst or anyone else for that matter, wanted to salvage these historic buildings, it was on them to raise the money to do so.

It raises interesting questions: Whose job is it to protect the history, traditions and heritage of Prince Edward County? Is preserving the County’s heritage a function of those with the deepest pockets? Is County council walking away from its responsibility to protect and preserve our heritage?

The County’s history is important to the folks who live here. It was well-documented in the Vision 2009 exercise. At every public meeting in which residents were asked to imagine their community in the future, preservation of the County’s Main Street architecture was among the top priorities all across the municipality.

When council approved the demolition of buildings on Main Street in Picton to make way for a grand expansion of Shire Hall, they heard loudly from the community and from its own heritage advisory committee that it was a mistake. Yet today, a gaping hole sits where a dozen residential apartments provided homes as well as a historic link to Picton’s architectural roots.

When a reckless thug with a wrecking ball smashed a hole in the wall of the brick church in Picton, County residents were horrified, and rose up in anger and frustration. Council vowed this would never happen again. They didn’t say, however, that municipal protection was dependent upon someone stepping forward with their chequebook.

In the County’s official and secondary plans, preservation of the County’s built heritage are ever-present values running through these documents. They provide clear prescriptions to builders, investors and residents about how they must respect the history, traditions and architectural heritage of this community. Yet some on council seem to think these directives don’t apply to them.

Worse, they lack the vision to see that investment in heritage, done prudently, can provide an attractive return—both in absolute terms and as a driver for economic prosperity. Let’s look a little closer at the transaction to acquire the convenience store and former pizza shop in Wellington.

County council agreed to purchase the properties for $620,000. They agreed to this, not because it was a great deal—it isn’t—but because the next best plan meant spending as much as $1.8 million to reroute Lane Creek. By acquiring these buildings, they could reduce this project cost by as much as $400,000. It was an easy decision. Few thought much more about it.

What they seemingly failed to absorb was that the proposition they accepted meant that $620,000 of taxpayer’s money would be sunk into this property forever—never to be recovered. That is, until residents and businesses in the village began to speak up.

Yes, it will take investment to restore or rebuild on Wellington’s key intersection. But the result will be a prized commercial and residential address. If council chooses to sell the buildings afterward, every additional penny over the construction and development costs represents a profit that otherwise would have been lost. If the County chooses to own the building and lease it to retail and residential tenants, it will have a bankable asset—perhaps the only building in its portfolio able to generate positive cash flow. In either case, it is clearly more financially prudent to capture this return than allow the lot to lie fallow— incurring only annual maintenance costs.

It is a false economy to pay that much money for this property and then refuse to make the necessary investments to secure a profitable return.

But perhaps these concepts are too opaque or too risky for this council. If that is the case, they ought to sell the building or building rights for a dollar. Place covenants on the sale to ensure that they are restored or rebuilt to a similar scale and featuring similar architectural detail.

Council was willing to accept zero return on its investment of $620,000. Surely they can see that generating development and connection charges, permit fees and a perpetual increase to the tax base is better than the nothing they agreed to last month.

Council members may be forgiven for their lack of financial acumen. They cannot be forgiven, however, for threatening to smash these buildings unless residents seeking ways to preserve the village’s architectural heritage, pony up. It is disrespectful to these residents, tragic stewardship of the County’s architectural heritage and dubious management of taxpayer’s dollars.

rick@wellingtontimes.ca