This powerful and relevant OpEd first appeared in the July 7, 2020 issue of the Daily Journal of Commerce. Co-author, Carrie Richter, serves as chairperson of Restore Oregon’s Policy and Advocacy Committee. Republished with permission.
The robust debate about the removal of monuments raises an important question: When have landmarks of the past outlived their relevance for the future? What is deemed worthy of preservation says as much to future generations about the value given to that thing as the message conveyed by the thing itself.
Take, for example, the Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt at the entry to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. For 80 years, white dominant patrons perceived the statue to be a tribute to Roosevelt’s contribution to protecting the natural world, including—to quote the sculptor–Roosevelt’s “friendliness to all races” as evidenced by the Black and Indigenous people sculpted alongside as “guides.” This statue is now slated for removal as it is, perhaps more accurately, interpreted as depicting subjugation and racial supremacy. It is not clear who was consulted in advance of the Roosevelt monument commission or its placement, but these decisions were often made by the white men with the unchecked privilege to enshrine their values on future generations through monuments.
Portland has a Teddy Roosevelt, an Abe Lincoln, and, until last month, a George Washington. There’s also a Coming of the White Man, a Joan of Arc, and, until last week, there was an elk. Unsurprisingly, each of these were ‘donated’ by white men (a statue of the especially fraught Harvey Scott was donated by his wife).
Historic preservation shares a commonality with public monuments in this respect – who decides which historic structures are worthy of designation, protection, removal, or demolition?
As with monuments, the National Register of Historic Places and local landmark lists across the country have been quick to venerate founding fathers and slow to embrace inclusion. The modern preservation movement finds its roots in protecting iconic structures associated with white, Euro, straight, male, capitalist history: Paul Revere’s house, Monticello, the Pittock Mansion. Once those “famous-individuals slept here” kind of structures were protected, attention turned to protecting high-style architectural edifices that recognizably convey a sense place. These most often include public buildings, banks, train stations, concert halls, and stadiums. Next, preservationists, particularly in the western states, turned their focus to systems of buildings that, together, tell a story that often included worker housing (known as “vernacular” or designed based on local building materials and tradition) such as a company mining town or neighborhood. Although more economically include, these efforts still were most often interpreted through the Anglo-male experience.
The trend in historic resource designation is once again pivoting in favor of celebrating local social and cultural history. For example, in March, the City of Portland nominated an umbrella multiple property listing identifying and celebrating resources contributing to African American experience in Portland—A first of its kind in the west. The nomination was accompanied by an individual designation of the Billy Webb Elks Lodge, 6 N Tillamook Street, which has served as an institution of the Black community within a largely segregated City since 1926.
Similarly, just last month a National Register nomination was submitted to acknowledge and protect Darcelle XV, a drag club that has operated in downtown Portland for the last 53 years. The Darcelle XV designation focused entirely on its contribution to the LGBTQ+ community and its history.
In both the Billy Webb and Darcelle XV designations, the property owners were willing to consent to historic designation. However, this is not always the case. An anomaly that is unique to Oregon, under state law, local governments are prohibited from taking any action to designate a historic resource if the property owner objects. This statute has led to the loss of a number of treasured icons including Dr. Pierce’s Pleasant Pellets Barn in Cottage Grove and, more recently, the loss of the Ancient Order of United Workmen Temple, on SW 2nd Street in Portland.
Since most of the private land in Oregon is owned by whites, members of this group effectively have unilateral veto power over decisions about whether historic resources may be protected or destroyed. This is a right that exists exclusively in the historic preservation; it does not exist for farmland, forestland or natural resource protections. When Justice Brennan wrote for the Court in Penn Central Transportation v. New York City, upholding local government authority to designate and protect historic resources over owner objection, he explained that zoning for the general welfare “commonly burdens some more than others.” In other words, shifting of benefits and burdens inherent in property ownership is an acceptable means to further a valid public purpose. The same is true when it comes to historic preservation.
In addition to diversifying designation decisions based on community values, the public deserves the opportunity to weigh in on what gets demolished, as well. Again, in Oregon, these are decisions largely reserved for white property owners. Local zoning codes must require demolition review for historic landmarks to allow public consideration of comprehensive plan policies. Similarly, local regulations need to expand adaptive reuse policies to encourage a diversity of uses and additional density to keep historic resources relevant in a changing world. Successful adaptive reuse strategies can offer meaningful opportunities for interpretation and healing for historic resources that were built during periods of exclusion but which merit continued preservation.
As Billy Webb and Darcelle XV designations suggest, there is a movement afoot to diversify the field of historic preservation. This effort will be stymied without a venue for local historic preservation discussions based upon public welfare and not merely on landowner stubbornness. The Oregon owner consent law is a means to reaffirm white male supremacy. It should follow in the footsteps of many monuments and come crashing down.
Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at the law firm Bateman Seidel.
Edward J. Sullivan is a retired practitioner in land use and municipal law with more than 45 years of experience in these fields.