Fund preservation for long-term

By Bill Olinger

-----

Demolition of buildings for the Physicians' Clinic of Iowa Medical Pavilion raises old questions. Why have most historic buildings ended up in a landfill?

Most critics implicate progress. Lack of progress in designing laws that promote preservation realistically is more culpable. We do have laws to cultivate interest in historic preservation that fall short of providing a reasonable expectation of profit from the enterprise. Nor do they take into account that the restoration of an old building is a lifetime commitment.

I purchased the Averill mansion on Second Avenue SE 30 years ago and have been engaged in its restoration continuously with the confidence the work will not be completed in my lifetime. Tax credits are available for this qualifying property, providing the work can be completed within a very limited time.

Compliance with deadlines is further complicated by the reality that the restoration work you complete has to be constantly maintained. These structures have not been built with modern low- maintenance products. Painting, tuckpointing, etc., is ongoing. I have lost track of the number of times I have repainted the exterior cornices and am on my eighth tuckpointing. The buildings are built to last forever providing you maintain forever.

But you do not get tax credits forever. As the credits run out, so can the commitment.

Even moving a historic building to prevent destruction has challenges. There are tax incentives but the regulations can be ludicrous.

For example, you can move a qualifying property only if its new orientation is in the same direction as on the old site. You must choose a site with an environment not dissimilar from the old. The regulations may preclude moving to a rural setting and present other insurmountable obstacles to investors.

The taxation of historic properties is a huge problem. The taxes on the Averill mansion have increased tenfold since we started restoration. The more you restore, the more you pay since you have increased assessed value. The tax breaks available are simply inadequate to overcome the onerous tax burden that must be factored in when evaluating a building for restoration or demolition.

If these buildings are as important as I am hearing, then they deserve a new special tax status that is perpetual.

Then there are building codes. Preserving historical architecture frequently requires waiving strict enforcement of codes.

I oppose the loss of architectural appointments more than the cost of compliance. Cedar Rapids has been cooperative in granting some waivers but in other jurisdictions there are many episodes of insensitivity to architecture when codes are applied.

For those who care, and it appears there are many, I urge you to support progressive legislation that will put profit in preservation long-term. It will stop the destruction.

As for the PCI project, it is not commonly known that the developers have worked hard to move the buildings that are controversial. They have offered substantial financial incentives to investors over and above those provided by statute. They have had some success beyond any I had anticipated when they started their project, notwithstanding demolition of buildings that were simply old but not important historically or for their architecture. I commend the developers' efforts.

Would I encourage others to restore historic properties? Absolutely! The work I have done on five buildings has been very rewarding. It was not altruism. No other investment has yielded more satisfaction.

It is not for everyone but if you have no artistic talents you can still participate in an art form. A history created by someone more talented than yourself.

It's an art, not a living.

Bill Olinger, an attorney from Cedar Rapids, owns four properties on the National Register of Historic Places. Comments: wmfolinger@aol.com