Good idea, flawed concepts

This is an interesting idea, to say the least, and I'll give the Athens-Clarke County Commission ample credit for trying to get ahead of the curve here.

All that said, I think it's got some apparent flaws based on this reporting.

For instance, I'm not entirely supportive of the concept of granting a singular commissioner the right to delay a demolition. I understand the rationale for doing so - that it will provide a quick means to protect a demolition - but I think it consolidates too much influence into one commissioner's hands.

In addition, I think this general concept is flawed ...

Otherwise, when a landowner applied for a demolition permit, planners would look up whether the building qualifies as historic. If so, they would notify commissioners. If none of them flagged the property, the demolition could move forward; but if a commissioner objected, a permit would not be issued for 60 days.

The delay would give county officials, and possibly historic preservation activists, time to find an alternative, such as a buyer who would rehabilitate the building. The commission also could unilaterally designate the building as historic and prevent the demolition, even if the owner objected.

This is after-the-fact legislating, and I'd rather see the comprehensive audit that will be conducted of the older structures in the community utilized as a proactive planning tool by giving officials an up-to-date database of buildings that are deemed historic. From there, the commission will have ample data to be able to set up more stringent guidelines, or outright bans, regarding demolitions on those districts as a whole.

The key would be having this information prior to any potential demolition. It seems to me that if this information is available and made public, that will inform potential buyers about what the community expects them to be able to do or not to do with a particular property.

The concept of coming in after a sale and then declaring a property untouchable, however, is problematic because it punishes the buyer for something he/she wasn't aware of anyway. If the property wasn't deemed historic, but then achieves that status after its acquisition by another party, that sets up the potential to put the buyer at a significant disadvantage (and, unless a comprehensive inventory of properties is conducted, could bring the business of in-fill development to a screeching halt).