“Demolition by neglect” is the process of a property owner allowing a building to fall in such disarray that it can't be rehabilitated, and the only way to improve the property is to demolish all structures and start anew.
The Springfield City Council will consider a resolution to pursue a new historic site survey, which profiles historic structures across Springfield. The survey results may be used to guide actions and recommendations by the Springfield Landmarks Board.
The resolution — and accompanying application to pursue a grant to help pay for it — came at the recommendation of the City Council Plans and Policies Committee amid a larger discussion of “demolition by neglect.”
On Aug. 9, Assistant City Attorney Kyle Tolbert outlined the intricacies of demolition by neglect, defining it as when “an owner allows a historic building, structure or site to deteriorate to the point that demolition becomes necessary, when that demolition would otherwise be prohibited.”
Last completed in the mid-1980s, the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office encouraged the City of Springfield to update the survey, which Interim Director of Planning and Development Brendan Griesemer said was “almost historic” itself.
Age of building not sole factor
The historic site survey takes into account several components — not just the age of the building — and the criteria could change and expand in an updated inventory. Factors could include whether a building is listed on a local or national historic register, its architectural style, who designed and built the structure and how they or someone else associated with the building contributed to the community, among other considerations.
The survey would identify and catalog buildings worthy of preservation, but administratively be used by the Landmarks Board in granting certificates of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness is a formal request to make changes to a historic building or demolish it. If denied, a property owner can reapply, apply for a certificate of economic hardship, file an appeal with the Springfield Board of Adjustment or simply wait. Even with the intervention of the City Council, an applicant can eventually move forward with demolition by waiting up to 300 days.
While the survey zeroes in on Springfield's historic districts — including Downtown, Commercial Street, Walnut Street and Midtown — it accounts for buildings around the city. The updated survey will note changes to existing listed structures, remove buildings that have since been demolished, and potentially add new ones.
If approved by the City Council, the city will hire a consultant to update the survey, which Griesemer estimated could cost between $30,000 and $40,000. The grant would fund 60 percent of the cost and would be administered by the State Historic Preservation Office.
The City Council will vote on the resolution charging the city to update the survey and apply for the grant to help pay for it on Nov. 6, after members of the Plans and Policies Committee unanimously approved the recommendation on Sept. 20. Chaired by Councilmember Abe McGull, council members Callie Carroll, Craig Hosmer and Derek Lee are also on the committee.
Demolition by neglect
Updating the survey is only one piece of a more in-depth discussion about historic preservation in Springfield and specifically, demolition by neglect. Over the course of three meetings beginning on Aug. 9, the Plans and Policies Committee discussed the city’s existing historic preservation efforts, challenges property owners and the city government face and potential changes to city codes.
Demolition by neglect can be intentional or unintentional, both of which can be difficult to prove. A historic building might undergo demolition by neglect if its owner allows deterioration in order to allow future demolition, thus avoiding the normal process to demolish historic structures.
On the other hand, an owner of a historic building might not have enough money to maintain the building, or it no longer serves a relevant use.
“Each case really needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis,” Tolbert said at the Aug. 9 meeting. “But the one unifying factor is it's generally driven by economic factors, whether it's intentional or unintentional.”
Just as there are checks to a property owner’s ability to demolish a historic building, there are legal constraints to the city’s ability to prevent demolition by neglect. The decision to renovate or demolish dilapidated buildings can be a complicated and expensive process — for property owners and city government.
St. Louis ordinance used as example
In exploring possibilities to equip Springfield with the legal means to prevent demolition by neglect, Tolbert presented information on St. Louis’ ordinance to the committee on Oct. 25.
Adopted in 2014, the St. Louis law categorizes structures into four areas: noncontributing, qualifying, merit and high merit. And while violators of the ordinance can face serious penalties — including prosecution — Tolbert and committee members found the definition of “high merit” to be vague.
While blighted buildings in Springfield are often demolished, either by the owner or the city, St. Louis requires owners of eligible historic buildings to repair exterior and structural features that are deteriorating. For owners without the financial means to make those repairs, Tolbert said that the city of St. Louis has a pot of American Rescue Plan Act funds they can apply for.
Tolbert identified several potential issues a demolition by neglect ordinance might face, including the effectiveness of the varying degrees of penalties and the continued deterioration of buildings during potential litigation. For example, a fine could have little impact on a property owner without the resources to make repairs.
“We're relying on city staff to identify demolition by neglect early enough to prevent deterioration,” Tolbert said. “It doesn't matter if we catch demolition by neglect when there's nothing left to save, so that does require some proactive efforts to identify these properties.”
That proactive approach could come in the form of addressing demolition by neglect, and historic preservation in general, concurrently with Springfield’s updated zoning codes, rather than being treated as a “standalone thing.”
Though encouraged by the discussion around demolition by neglect, Landmarks Board Chair Layne Hunton pointed to Springfield’s lack of existing enforcement on the demolition of historic buildings.
“All of this is still a moot point right now,” Hunton said. “Because if someone wants to demolish their building, it's their property, they have a right to do it…I don't think we can fully get to this point without actually establishing rules for normal demo permits.”
Councilmember Hosmer said he would like to hear further input from the Landmarks Board as discussions continue.
City Manager Jason Gage said that the committee, and furthermore the City Council, would likely see the updated historic site survey before making a decision on adopting a demolition by neglect ordinance.
If approved by the council, Gage estimated the survey could take more than six months to put together, with the timeline depending on its geographic scope.
