Forum Journal & Forum Focus

Local Government and Historic Preservation 

02-25-2019 14:44

As recently as twenty-five years ago most local governments were not involved in historic preservation activities. Rare were such communities as Savannah, Georgia, or Charleston, South Carolina, which had established historic district ordinances and public commissions responsible for protecting and enhancing historic resources. Indeed, many local government officials viewed preservation activity as an impediment to growth and progress; local preservationists were always trying to block the demolition of an old building, delaying the construction of the new civic center or industrial park. New development—not preservation— was seen by community leaders and citizens as the best means of increasing employment opportunities, diversifying the community’s economic base, and adding much-needed tax revenue to the public coffers.

During the past quarter of a century this attitude has dramatically changed. Hundreds of local governments actively promote historic preservation and have developed programs to protect and enhance their historic resources. Thousands of public officials view historic preservation as a means of achieving appropriate economic growth as well as of enhancing employment opportunities and public revenues. Additionally, public officials as well as community leaders and citizens have come to appreciate the role historic preservation plays in enhancing the quality of their community’s life.

There are many reasons for this change in attitude. Certainly the tenacity of local preservation activists in educating public officials and cajoling them into viewing preservation in a positive light cannot be underestimated. Nor can the preservationists’ role in increasing the public’s awareness of the benefits of historic preservation. Successful projects, such as the rehabilitation and reuse of a historic building or the revitalization of an entire commercial district based on the preservation of its buildings, have demonstrated the economic viability of historic preservation. Studies that link the tourism potential of a community to its preservation activities have shown many public officials a new potential economic base for their town. The stabilization and enhancement of inner-city neighborhoods through the preservation of their buildings have been equally important in demonstrating the positive aspects of historic preservation.

Federal and state encouragement of historic preservation during the last twenty-five years has also contributed to the change in attitude by local government officials. The creation of the State Historic Preservation Office system in 1966, tax benefits for the rehabilitation of historic buildings in 1976, and the Certified Local Government program in 1980 have all encouraged local governments to view historic preservation activities as positive rather than negative contributions. The use of such federal and state development finance mechanisms as Community Development Block Grants and Development Bonds to help finance preservation and adaptive-use projects has also contributed to this change in attitude.

The means by which historic preservation is incorporated into local government vary, but many communities have used three primary methods. Such communities as Abilene, Texas, and Shelby, North Carolina, have used preservation as a basis for the revitalization of their downtowns. Other communities—among them Vicksburg, Mississippi, and Louisville, Kentucky—have stabilized and enhanced their older residential neighborhoods through the preservation of their housing stock. Still other communities— for example, Ogden, Utah, and San Luis Obispo, California—have incorporated historic preservation as part of their comprehensive plans.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Perhaps the strongest argument for local government’s support of historic preservation is its role in economic development. Since the passage of the first tax benefits for rehabilitating income-producing National Register properties in 1976, in excess of $14 billion has been invested in more than 21,000 buildings. These buildings not only provide quality space in which to house businesses and apartments but in many cases they have also served as a catalyst for additional nearby development. Often prior to their rehabilitation the historic buildings were vacant, producing little or no tax revenues for the local government. By placing them back in service, the community not only helps ensure their continued existence but also increases its tax base.

Similarly, many communities have used historic preservation as a basis for revitalizing their downtown and neighborhood business districts. Such initiatives as the National Main Street Center, a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, have led this effort. The center reports that during the 1980s more than $1.8 billion was reinvested in 600 downtown and neighborhood business districts. More important than the hundreds of buildings rehabilitated has been the renewal of these districts as quality commercial centers providing goods and services for citizens.

The rehabilitation of National Register buildings and the revitalization of traditional commercial districts have forged a new partnership between the public and private sectors. Many communities have supported the rehabilitation of historic buildings by working with developers to obtain such federal funds as Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Additionally, communities have provided site and public amenities, bond financing, and other forms of capital to help finance rehabilitation projects. Some local governments encourage property rehabilitations through participation in grant programs, facade easements, loan-guarantee programs, or low-interest loan programs. Two recent studies—one conducted by the National League of Cities,1 the other by the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Urban Institute2—found that these forms of public assistance are important tools in creating successful commercial district revitalization programs.3

 One community that has successfully used historic preservation as a basis for its downtown economic-development efforts is Abilene, Texas. Founded in the 1870s as a rail center, Abilene has an early history that has been romanticized in hundreds of books and films. The town’s transformation from a frontier community into the major metropolis in west central Texas occurred in the early 1900s with the discovery of nearby oil and gas fields. In common with other cities with economic vitality linked to the extraction and processing of natural materials, Abilene has experienced several periods of boom and bust. This cycle is reflected in the downtown’s architecture; many of the most architecturally significant buildings date from the boom period between 1910 and 1920. Ironically, many of those same structures were threatened by subsequent boom periods.

In the early 1970s the city was experiencing a lack of growth due to the depressed state of the oil industry. As so often happens during these times, property owners allowed their buildings to deteriorate or abandoned them altogether. The city, acting to ensure public safety and health, targeted a number of these buildings for demolition. To make certain that the targeted buildings were not architecturally or historically important the city asked the Taylor County Historical Commission to review all planned demolitions. Working with the commission, staff from the city’s Community Development (CD) department began to appreciate the role that historic preservation might play in the economic revitalization of the city, particularly in its downtown. In the late 1970s CD staff joined with private citizens to found the Abilene Preservation League. The league, a nonprofit organization, was to promote preservation throughout the community and to intervene actively in the marketplace to save historic properties.

Soon after its founding the league conducted surveys to determine the extent of historic resources within Abilene. More than 200 properties were determined to be of value; sixty-three were recommended for designation. In 1983 the city council passed the Abilene Landmark Preservation Ordinance, creating an eleven- member landmark commission as an agency of city government. The following year amendments to the ordinance linked the city’s zoning code to historic preservation activities by creating a historic overlay zone. Designated historic properties within the zone receive an automatic property-tax reduction, thus showing property owners a concrete benefit of owning a historic property. Additionally, if the property owner undertakes an appropriate rehabilitation, an additional property-tax reduction is available.

In 1981 the Abilene Preservation League, with the encouragement of the city’s CD department, purchased the 1930 Paramount Theater. Located in the heart of downtown, this atmospheric-style movie palace closed in the late 1970s and was slated to be demolished to make way for a parking lot. After listing the building in the National Register so that a private investor could access the rehabilitation tax credits, the league found a purchaser who agreed to renovate the building. The restored Paramount now offers entertainment on more than 200 nights a year, attracting people back downtown after the business day is over.

The second major downtown project undertaken by the league with assistance from the city was the restoration and adaptive use of the historic Grace Hotel. Originally constructed in 1907—additions were made in 1920—the Grace was the city’s premier tradesman hotel prior to World War II. The league became involved in the project in 1986 when it convinced the building’s owners to offer the organization an option on the property. Putting together a coalition of Abilene’s art museum and the Junior League, the preservation league and its partners managed to raise $3.8 million to rehabilitate the building for use as a museum and offices and an additional $1 million as an endowment for future maintenance. The majority of the money came from local foundations, businesses, organizations, and individuals. Additional funds came from a Texas-based foundation impressed by the unique partnership of the preservation league, art museum, and the Junior League.

A key component of the financial package for the Grace Hotel was $750,000 from the city’s Tax Increment Finance (TTF) fund. As do most state TIF regulations, Texas law dictates that TTF funds be used for “the public good” within the district in which they are collected.4 Typically this means that the funds are used for public works projects or for the public’s share of low-interest loan programs. Abilene’s TIF Board, which controls the use of the funds, was convinced that the rehabilitation of the Grace would serve as a catalyst for additional private investment in surrounding properties and voted to provide the $750,000 as a grant to the project. To comply with state TTF regulations, the building’s facade was donated to the city, making it public property. The TIF funds were used to restore the facade, work that included the reconstruction of a demolished entry canopy and porch.

Abilene’s use of historic preservation as a basis for economic development has been repeated in hundreds of other communities. The aim of many of these communities is to increase the appeal of their commercial districts to local investors and citizens rather than to attract outsiders. Others, such as Galveston, Texas, and New Harmony, Indiana, use the preservation of their buildings and cultural resources to attract tourists. Still others—Telluride, Colorado, is an example—reinforce the appeal of their natural setting and recreational opportunities by preserving their downtown. These communities and hundreds of others have found that historic preservation makes economic sense.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION

Since the 1940s local government’s attitudes toward neighborhood stabilization have largely been shaped by federal housing policy. For example, the late 1940s and early 1950s saw an incredible number of new single-family houses constructed, financed in part by home mortgage programs of the Veterans Administration. Local governments facilitated these new subdivisions by providing necessary roads and water and sewer lines as well as such public buildings as schools and libraries. The 1950s and early 1960s also saw large-scale clearance of traditional inner-city housing fueled in part by policies contained in the Housing Act of 1949 and reinforced through various federal urban-renewal programs. Local governments were directed to create agencies to assemble, clear, and prepare sites for sale or lease to private developers. Most of these programs, at best, ignored historic preservation as a positive influence on neighborhood stabilization and, at worst, were directly responsible for the demolition of hundreds of historic buildings.

On the other hand, a few federal programs sought to engage local governments and residents in rehabilitating existing housing. For example, the Model Cities Program of the 1960s, for all of its problems, was designed to assist people in rehabilitating existing housing and to address public-safety concerns of inner-city neighborhoods. The concept of involving local governments more directly in federal housing policy was reinforced in 1974 by the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act. This act assembled a number of existing federal-assistance programs into a single competitive CDBG program. A crucial aspect of this program was the philosophy that local governments, not the federal government, are best able to assess local priorities. In practice this gave local government officials far more control than they had hitherto known in setting their own goals for community development. In some communities this resulted in refocusing housing programs away from demolition and rebuilding toward rehabilitation and neighborhood stabilization.

Another factor that contributed to local government’s increased concern for historic preservation as a basis for neighborhood stabilization during the 1970s and 1980s was the emergence of the so called “yuppies.” This population cohort, maturing during an extended period of prosperity, is well-educated and recognizes the architectural and historic value of many inner-city neighborhoods. This group also commands the financial resources to invest in the rehabilitation of these buildings and possesses the political acumen needed to create historic district protection mechanisms.

A third factor that influenced attitudinal change about the preservation of older neighborhoods was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1976. This act, passed as part of interstate banking deregulation, encouraged local financial institutions to reinvest in their communities, including areas that previously had been redlined. The act also resulted in many financial institutions becoming involved with nonprofit and quasipublic housing agencies to provide affordable housing for lower-income citizens. It also influenced the creation of bank community-development investment corporations that provide capital for many higher-risk housing projects in inner-city neighborhoods.

During the last decade a number of studies have shown that historic designation of residential neighborhoods results in appreciation of real-estate values. For example, a study conducted in three historic neighborhoods in Dallas showed a significant appreciation of property values due primarily to historic designation.5 The author of the study concludes that this was due to a number of factors including the protection that the local preservation ordinance gives to the buildings and landscape from incompatible intrusions. Additionally, low-interest loans available from the city for rehabilitating the houses have encouraged investment in the buildings. Other studies have confirmed these findings, citing the quality of the district’s architecture, the location of the neighborhood, and the availability of financial assistance as key components of a neighborhood’s stabilization and revitalization.6

Vicksburg, Mississippi, is one example of a community that has effectively used historic preservation as a basis for neighborhood stabilization. Founded as a trading center on the Mississippi River, Vicksburg is associated with one of the longest sieges of the Civil War. Because of this association, and the quality of its antebellum and postbellum architecture, the city and its residents have long been active in historic preservation. The city’s preservation agencies are the Historic Preservation Commission, which approves local historic district and landmark designations, and the Board of Architectural Review, which approves alterations and new construction within historic districts and to local landmarks. In partnership with downtown property owners and businesses, the city sponsors a Main Street program, affiliated with both the Mississippi Main Street Program and the National Main Street Center. Vicksburg also supports two private, nonprofit preservation organizations: The Vicksburg Foundation for Historic Preservation, which produces educational programs, conducts walking tours, and historic surveys, and Vicksburg Landmarks, Inc., which administers a revolving loan fund and is active in development projects. In addition to the local public and private preservation agencies, the National Park Service, which owns and manages the Vicksburg Battlefield Park, works closely with the city to promote tourism and preservation.

A major problem confronting Vicksburg is the number of substandard dwelling units—forty-two percent of the community’s residential stock. The city’s effort to address this problem is handicapped by a lack of funds. Public funds are limited because the state has one of the lowest tax structures in the country. Additionally, Mississippi ranks near the bottom in per capita income, making private financing to rehabilitate buildings difficult to obtain.

In an attempt to address the problem of substandard dwellings, the city and the Vicksburg Foundation creatively worked together to rehabilitate homes in the North Cherry Street neighborhood. Located adjacent to a major entry to the battlefield park, the neighborhood is seen by hundreds of visitors daily. Wishing to improve the image of the area, as well as to preserve its buildings, the city requested that the Vicksburg Foundation as an independent organization review properties that it was acquiring to determine then- architectural and historic significance prior to demolition. By 1988 the foundation determined that five were of significance and launched an effort to rehabilitate them. First, however, the foundation had to determine the feasibility of rehabilitation. Experts examined each building in detail and determined that two of the five were too deteriorated to be saved. Vicksburg Landmarks, Inc., using its revolving fund, purchased the three that were salvageable. The revolving fund was capitalized at $50,000 through private donations and city monies gained by the sale of surplus public property. Vicksburg Landmarks next secured a developer to rehabilitate the homes according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The organization offered the developer low-interest loans while the city offered Community Development Block Grant funds and assisted the developer in applying for Section 8 subsidies. The rehabilitated houses now form the nucleus of additional preservation efforts in the neighborhood.

Vicksburg’s local government, working in close partnership with local nonprofit preservation organizations, is beginning to address the issue of neighborhood stabilization. Other examples of local governments that effectively use historic preservation to stabilize older neighborhoods can be found all across the country. As these neighborhoods become reestablished, residents and public officials can clearly see the benefits derived from preserving historic resources.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

During the last decade hundreds of communities have developed or revised their comprehensive plans. Many were responding to state directives to do so, others were engaged in the process as a way of creating a framework for guiding growth. In many cases these comprehensive plans incorporate historic preservation as a component—and, in some cases, as a major underlying theme.

Comprehensive plans typically are built around the existing physical, land-use, and economic patterns of a community. Sections of a comprehensive plan address housing and neighborhoods, commercial districts, industrial areas, transportation, recreation, education and cultural opportunities, utilities, and infrastructure. Most plans also focus on environmental issues and methods to create an improved quality of life for the community. It is through the latter that historic preservation often becomes part of a comprehensive plan.

The comprehensive planning process often begins by defining a vision for a community’s future. The vision should appeal to a broad sector of residents, reflecting their desires and concerns. This broad appeal encourages residents to support the programs and projects required to realize that vision and implement the plan. The process of creating the plan requires months—or even years—to complete. Input from citizens, organizations, and interest groups as well as from experts and professionals is required. Local nonprofit preservation organizations and public preservation agencies should be involved in the process in a number of ways. Information on the community’s historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources must be part of the data analyzed as part of the process. Often this is best supplied by the local preservation organization or agency. Preservation’s ability to assist in economic development, neighborhood stabilization, or other sections of the plan must be defined. The role of historic preservation in defining the community’s vision must be articulated. Finally, roles for the private preservation organizations and public preservation agencies in implementing the comprehensive plan should be defined.

One community that recently embarked upon a comprehensive planning process that exemplifies the role of historic preservation is Ogden, Utah. Located thirty miles north of Salt Lake City on the western edge of the Wasatch Mountain Range, Ogden was founded in the mid-nineteenth century. Today this city of 65,000 has a diversified economic base of manufacturing, trade, service, and recreation.

In 1982 the city created its landmark commission to inventory and survey local historic resources. Unlike most historic commissions in Utah, which are created as subcommittees of the local planning commission, Ogden’s landmark commission is a separate city agency. As such, the commission had to create its own administrative structure and procedures. Independence also gave the landmark commission equal status to the planning commission and other public boards that affect growth and change within the community.

Two years after the landmark commission was established the city embarked upon its comprehensive planning process, which is still under way. Unlike many communities that use a comprehensive planning process that ultimately results in a completed plan, Ogden uses an ongoing, evolving process by which sections of the plan are drafted sequentially and then continually subjected to revision as new sections are added. This results in a comprehensive plan that changes as new areas of the city’s future are defined. It also results in a document that is developed by in-house city staff, local organizations, and residents rather than in one that is created primarily by outside consultants.

The city’s planning department is responsible for developing the comprehensive plan. First, staff determined a broad outline for the plan. The outline contains a number of traditional sections: neighborhoods, central business district, industrial areas, transportation, parks, recreation, and public safety. It also contains some nontraditional sections: energy, annexation, and historic preservation.

The historic preservation section was the first to be drafted. This was done at the urging of city staff and members of the landmark commission and has resulted in making subsequent sections of the plan very sensitive to preservation issues and opportunities. For example, the section of the plan that addresses the future of the central business district, the second to be drafted, defines two downtown zones. Retail, financial institutions, and professional and government offices are encouraged to locate in an “intensive zone” in the center of downtown. To help preserve and make economically viable the older and historic buildings in this zone, housing with relaxed parking requirements is encouraged as a use of vacant upper floors. Surrounding this zone is the broader “downtown zone” where other uses such as warehousing and light manufacturing are permitted. The functional needs of these uses are seen as compatible with many of the existing buildings and character of this zone.

The historic preservation section also influenced the neighborhood section of the plan, the third to be developed. Many neighborhoods contained vacant and deteriorating large historic houses. While no longer desirable as residences, most could successfully be used by small businesses or professional offices. After carefully considering the impact of businesses in a residential area as well as the impact of a business’s functional requirements on the historic house, this section of the plan encouraged the use of certain National Register houses in particular neighborhoods for a limited range of small businesses and professional offices. This not only broadened the number of potential uses for the buildings, but also opened the door to the utilization by owners of the rehabilitation investment tax credits.

While developing the comprehensive plan is primarily the responsibility of Ogden’s planning department, implementing the completed sections and their ongoing revision is the responsibility of all city departments, agencies, and commissions as well as private nonprofit and for-profit organizations. Within the local government, this broad-based implementation responsibility has led to many cross-departmental teams working on a particular program. For example, unlike many landmark commissions, which are staffed by a single person, Ogden’s landmark commissioners regularly work with a long-range planner, a current planner, a building inspector, and a staff person from within the city’s redevelopment agency. As particular issues arise, other staff from within city hall are called upon. This team-staffing arrangement gives commissioners direct access to a broad spectrum of expertise and exposes a wide range of city staff to the city’s historic preservation efforts.

The comprehensive planning process incorporating historic preservation works in Ogden for a number of reasons. First, city departments and staff are not territorial, encouraging a team approach to implementation of and revisions to the plan. Second, the city strives to make its regulating programs and ordinances user- friendly by making them understandable to property owners, businesses, and residents. The city is also concerned with providing rapid responses to applications and inquiries. Finally, by starting with the historic preservation section, preservation’s potential role in all aspects of the plan is made manifest.

While the comprehensive planning process varies in communities across the country, it provides an excellent means by which to integrate historic preservation into the future of our towns and cities. Whether the process is ongoing—as is Ogden's—or a more traditional process resulting in a final plan and implementation strategy, the key to integrating preservation into a comprehensive plan is to define its roles in all aspects of the plan. By articulating these roles in the central business district, neighborhoods, transportation, educational and recreational opportunities, and the like, historic preservation can become part of a community’s future.

MANAGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S PRESERVATION EFFORTS

Just as local governments have incorporated historic preservation into their economic-development programs, neighborhood stabilization efforts, and comprehensive planning processes in a number of ways, they have also developed various methods by which to manage their historic preservation efforts. Some communities have created separate divisions within existing local government departments to manage their preservation programs. Typically, these divisions can be found within departments of community development, planning, or economic development. A few communities have created separate historic preservation departments giving their heads, at least in theory, parity with the heads of other city departments. Still other communities have formed effective alliances with local nonprofit preservation organizations, relying on the staff and expertise of such organizations to promote historic preservation within the community.

Perhaps one of the most effective ways for a local government to manage its preservation efforts is through the creation of a historic district or landmark commission. While this often is a time- consuming and politically charged process, a commission made up of a broad cross section of the community can be far more effective in promoting preservation than city staff alone or city staff in concert with staff from a local nonprofit preservation organization. Ideally, commission members will represent the various constituencies in the community and will be committed to the importance of preservation. They should have the ability to educate the various interest groups about the roles preservation can play in maintaining and enhancing the community. This will require not only that commission members understand preservation, but that they also be respected and accepted by the various interest groups. For example, it is a good idea for commissions that focus primarily on residential areas and issues to include local residents as members. Similarly, those commissions that deal with business districts on economic-development issues should include local merchants, property owners, or officers of financial institutions as members.

Whether a local government’s preservation efforts are managed by city staff, local nonprofit preservation staff, or a commission, it is vital that the day-to-day functioning of historic preservation programs and projects be closely coordinated with other programs of local government. A number of methods can help achieve this coordination. Consistency in related local ordinances and codes— zoning, signs, building, and historic preservation—is an important first step. Inconsistency in ordinances not only raises questions of precedence, but also creates the impression that the city is not certain about what it hopes to achieve through regulation. Keeping city staff and commissions apprised of local government’s preservation activities through the circulation of minutes of meetings, summaries of action taken, and the like helps keep city employees and commission members aware of the importance of preservation as well as of specific programs and activities. Highlighting particular sections or attaching Post-it notes often help draw attention to particular passages. Holding regular joint planning meetings with key staff, departments, or commissions also helps to coordinate and manage local government preservation efforts. Similarly holding joint staff or commission meetings on particular projects helps achieve coordination. Finally, educational sessions for city staff and members of commissions is an effective way of informing them of the role that preservation can play in their day- to-day duties and responsibilities.

Of particular importance to managing a local government’s preservation efforts is the establishment of a close working relationship between the preservation staff and/or commission and other city staff and commissions that directly affect historic preservation. Typically, this means that a community’s preservation staff and commission should develop effective relationships with staff and commissions responsible for zoning, planning, community development, building codes, inspection, and occupancy. In some communities it may mean developing similar relationships with the housing department, legal department, department of public works, or parks and recreation since they may directly affect local historic resources.

CONCLUSION

Local governments have the opportunity to enrich the quality of their environments by actively preserving and enhancing their historic resources. They can use these resources to create new economic-development opportunities and to stabilize and revitalize their declining neighborhoods. By incorporating historic preservation into their comprehensive planning process, local governments can help ensure that historic resources help to shape the community’s vision for the future.

Local governments should not be expected to carry the preservation burden alone. Strong private-sector and nonprofit support for preservation is critical to success. Similar to the partnerships local governments have forged with developers, industry, housing associations, and others to accomplish their goals and create new opportunities, strong partnerships must be forged between city hall and the preservation community. With the continued emphasis in Washington on empowering local governments to take a more active role in shaping their future, creating effective ways of incorporating historic preservation into local government should be part of the preservation agenda for the 1990s.7

NOTES

1 Ann O'M Bowman, Tools and Targets: The Mechanics of City Economic Development (Washington, DC: The National League of Cities, 1987).

2 Richard D. Wagner, Ted Miller, and Paul Wright, “Revitalizing Downtown: 1976-1986” (Washington, DC: The National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1988). For a report on the study, see “Revitalizing Downtown: 1976-1986,” Preservation Forum, Summer 1989.

3 For a concise list of other studies on economic development and historic preservation, see Elizabeth Brabec and Andrew Zehner, The Economics of Community Character Preservation: An Annotated Bibliography (Washington, DC: Government Finance Research Center, 1990).

4 TIF funds are an increasingly popular method of generating public financing for development in older commercial districts. The difference—increment—in taxes collected on a property before and after its development is placed in the TIF fund to be used to support additional development within a designated area.

5 Kerry Vandell, “An Analysis of the Effects of Historic Designation on Property Values in the Neighborhoods of Winnetka Heights, Munger Place and Swiss Avenue” (Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1987),

6 For example, see Benson and Klein, “The Impact of Historic Districting on Property Value," Appraisal Journal, April 1988, or Booz, Allen and Hamilton, “The Contribution of Historic Preservation to Urban Revitalization,” prepared for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

7 This article is based on information obtained during the National Trust’s and National Park Service's Certified Local Government Laboratory Workshops. Conducted from 1988 to 1990, the workshops were designed in part  to explore issues related to integrating historic preservation into local government. Additional information was derived from Local Government and Historic Preservation by Richard Wagner. Copies of the publication can be obtained by contacting National Main Street Center, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 673-4219.

Publication Date: March/April 1991


#ForumJournal
#PreservationTools

Author(s):Richard Wagner
Volume:5
Issue:2

Related Entries and Links