As has been reported in the local papers lately there is disagreement and confusion about the subject of protecting & conserving heritage properties in King.  Often discussions about the need to protect seem theoretical and almost abstract as the built property being discussed is well maintained by the current owner; people can’t understand why it is necessary to list the property on the Heritage Register or to designate it.  As explained in the Staff report on Council agenda 10/19, there is now a good example why listing or designation is required:  demolition permits have been given for two heritage properties in King City which I believe most people would consider as essential to the “look and feel” of King City.   Because they are not listed on the Heritage Register there is only one way to prevent demolition:  designate them before they are demolished.  If the properties had been listed, as the Heritage Advisory Committee recommended in 2012, there would be 60 days to review with the property owner why demolition is being considered; to determine if there are options to demolition.

As I indicated above, the two properties (2169 AND 2175 King Road) are very much part of the streetscape of King City.  If we don’t truly start conserving our built heritage King City is not going to be distinctive.  Its ironic that we would lose these 2 houses just as it is being proven in King City that re-purposing 19th century buildings into 21st century enterprises is feasible.  (There is Eversely Church re-puposed to Engel & Volkers real estate office; Crawford & Maud Wells house being re-purposed into a coffee shop.)  The 2 threatened properties are also significant because of their history, who built them, who have lived there.  Reviewing that one gets insight into how King City was established and grew.

I would much prefer to have discussions with the property owner without forcing designation; but with the wrecking ball swinging in the air I don’t see an option.