Sites worthy of inclusion in registry

Apr 18 2007 EDITORIAL http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/

We applaud the addition of 11 sites to the city’s heritage registry. The additions increase the number of heritage sites to 31 and highlight the diversity of architectural styles throughout the city. Some of the additions, like Penticton Memorial Arena and St. Saviour’s Anglican Church, are obvious. These institutions have played central roles in the history of our city and their inclusion reminds us of their role as leading threads in the social, cultural and spiritual life of this city. Indeed, some hockey fans may see their simultaneous inclusion as fitting because Memorial Arena is among the most hollowed shrines of Canadian hockey. Other choices appear unusual, but inspired. The inclusion of the Penticton Oxbows for example is an enlightened selection because it expands the definition of what is a heritage site. While we often only think of buildings as historically worthy, the Oxbows’ selection confirms the importance of the natural environment to our overall well-being. We are of the opinion that a culture that disregards its natural surroundings ends up diminishing itself and the inclusion of the Oxbows is an explicit acknowledgment of this link. Unfortunately, many of us are still blind to this fact and we hope to see more natural areas join the heritage registry.

Affected homeowners have so far not resisted prior inclusions. But that is because they stand nothing to lose. The registry does not grant identified heritage sites immunity from potentially destructive change. Only legislation can accomplish this. But such a move would not only be lengthy, but also complicated and controversial, as witnessed in other communities. It would raise fundamental questions about the appropriate balance between the rights of private property owners and public needs. This space is certainly not the forum to answer these questions in much detail. But we wonder whether the registry is sustainable in the long run because it gives critics and supporters reasons to complain. Critics could see it as a prelude to more stringent legislation. But supporters may well lament the fact that it does not go far enough. This invites charges that the registry is nothing more than a public relations exercise. We certainly do not share this degree of cynicism. The registry is valuable because it alerts the city of upcoming changes to the identified sites. That fact alone earns the registry our endorsement. But the city can only wait for so long until it resolves the dilemma underlying its heritage policy.