Flanked by industrial and commercial properties, 294 Elliott Avenue, seen here from Harvey Street, is also known as Elliott Farmhouse and is a registered heritage property with the City of Kingston. The property currently serves as a law office. Image via Google Maps.
Editor’s note: The following is an opinion piece regarding heritage designation of properties in the City of Kingston. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Kingstonist.
It’s time for you to pay more on home insurance because some people, who don’t own your home, like a particular type of architecture that you happen to have, and can ensure it stays that way — whether you want it to or not.
That frustrating situation and many like it are at the heart of recent discussions about whether the City should force private property owners to adhere to a list of historical aesthetics deemed worthy of protection by the provincial government and a municipal committee.
Indeed, many conundrums arise when Queen’s Park and City Hall start telling people that their houses and businesses must be designated for heritage protection against their will.
For example, a young family may be mandated to put thousands of extra dollars toward maintaining the mansard roof over their heads, when they’d rather invest those funds in their kids’ education. Or they can live with the leak.
Another instance: a senior citizen may have to dip into their savings (drawing money they can’t replenish living on a fixed income) because the legislation in question has the power to compel wood instead of look-alike vinyl windows and siding. Or they can let their home rot.
Some residents are okay with this. They believe their understanding of what Kingston looked like 150 years ago is more important than the individual situations which cause folks to oppose such designation. Of course, proponents will persist, and note that that’s not the case. They say there are grants available to enable upkeep for the non-consensual heritage designations and that those against these programs, especially cash-stretched homeowners and small businesses, simply need to be educated.
Sounds fine? The truth, however, is less sunny.
Those grants barely scratch the surface of some of the requirements of heritage designation; and education on what’s available only goes to show that it is incredibly tricky to upkeep accordingly, particularly if you don’t want to be doing it because you are trying to live paycheque to paycheque in the post-COVID inflationary economy, barely holding onto your accommodations and paying for food as it is.
Thankfully, the solution is simple — let’s not let our beautiful, old city fall into disrepair; nor should we abandon state-supported conservation efforts.
We are blessed to have many vibrant features from yesteryear. We should celebrate and reward those who chose to put their lives and livelihoods into their preservation. The solution is rather to end top-down edicts which override the volition of property owners. If you don’t want your home to be designated because you can’t afford it, it shouldn’t be.
To be very clear, as the local heritage foundation and Kingston City staff have made known time and again, the vast majority (something like 90+ per cent) of proposed heritage designations go uncontested. In other words, efforts to protect Kingston’s past are alive and well in the present. Let’s be glad for that. For the few addresses which are not okay with rules and regulations on what is presumably their largest asset, let’s respect that.
Additionally, the heritage process includes a time for dissent. It empowers Council to listen to their constituents who face trouble if they’re told how big their windows can be (enlarging them if you suffer from seasonal affective disorder would not be allowed under some of the stipulations, did you know?). If that part of the process is dismissed as a nuisance, then it fails to account for the democratic nature of government and the transparent, caring society which we purport to uphold. It’s good, not bad, that people get choice in what colour they paint their shutters and that our representatives are responsive to that discussion.
Finally, there are few programs the municipality forces homeowners to enrol in. Even our best efforts to combat climate change with increased domestic renewable energy, for example, or the promotion of affordable housing with secondary suites, are voluntary and based on incentives… that homeowners opt-in to! Amazingly, without being coerced, these opportunities are well subscribed and Kingston is lowering emissions and building more units.
So, let’s use the same approach for heritage. We can use our collective purse to give to those who want to upkeep their historical properties. And we can applaud those who do with awards and recognition!
But we should not prohibit citizens from putting on an addition for their in-laws/grown kids who can’t afford their own place because it may be out of keeping with the vibe from Sir John A’s day. We should not tell a doctor to not put a ramp for her patient’s accessibility because we’re concerned with the appearance of steel bars. Or any such silly back and forth.
In short, heavy-handed heritage makes for unnecessarily messy trade-offs that seem to favour looks over livability. The City should empower, not overrule, property owners’ choices.
Robert Kiley is a former Kingston City Councillor and long-time MPP candidate for Kingston and the Islands.
Opinion: It’s time to revisit heritage designations
