A Composite of Ideas

Some ideas are excerpted from Historic Preservation Division's Briefing Book for the New Mexico Congressional Delegation, March 10, 1998. Please add your own thoughts via email to: webmaster@nmbea.org

Historic Preservation:

• Brings the richness and variety of history to life, involving the local community in preserving what is important to us, reflects our way of life, and links us to the events, communities, families, and individuals.
• Builds pride in communities, while stabilizing and revitalizing neighborhoods, improving building stock, and increasing the tax base.
• Is labor-intensive, creating jobs and apprenticeships while preserving skills and valuing craftsmanship.
• Is a local activity, pumping money for goods and services into the local economy and encouraging investments.
• Attracts and involves tourists in activities that build and understand of New Mexico cultures.

Court Findings

[The following information is excerpted from The Power to Preserve]

Like every element of public policy, historic preservation is provided for and limited by the United States Constitution and judicial interpretations of the Constitution, most importantly the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Constitutional questions are always in the background when historic preservation policy is being made or exercised. The regulation of private property by the public is a prominent element of historic preservation. Preservation boards and other bodies must keep constitutional issues in mind at all times. Property owners and other interested persons affected by historic preservation board and commission decisions can be relied on to bring these issues up. Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

In finding that historic preservation is a valid governmental objective, the courts have cited various ways in which historic preservation promotes the general welfare. These include:

• economic stimulation through tourism (A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444, 450 (N.C. 1979));
• cultural and educational enrichment (Figarsky v. Historic District Comm'n, 368 A.2d 163, 170-71 (Conn. 1976) and Bohannan v. City of San Diego, 106 Cal. Rptr. 333, 336-37 (Ct. App. 1973));
• neighborhood protection (Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Board of Adjustment, 599 S.W.2d 61, 66-67 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980));
• increased property values (Figarsky; also Town of Deering v. Tibbetts, 202 A.2d 232, 235 (N.H. 1964));
• improved aesthetics (Maher v. City of New Orleans, 516 F.2d 1051, 1060 (5th Cir. 1975));
• protection of sentimental attachments (City of New Orleans v. Levy, 64 So.2d 798, 801 (La.1953));
• the fostering of architectural creativity (A-S-P Associates).