Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 4 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
were raised indicates that there may not be a concensus in favor of historic preservation. Perhaps the Council would do well to address that issue in the near future, so that, if the decision is made to continue the effort, the ARB can be given clearer marching orders.
Historic preservation is not an exact science. Rather, it involves a process of developing standards and procedures that may be applied consistently to all. The principal thrust of historic preservation is similar to the charge given to the medical profession: “do no harm.” While simple in statement, this rule is often difficult in application.
It makes no difference whether the standards are expressed in terms of “should” or “ought,” rather than “shall” or “must,” as argued by some during the debate. The guiding concern for the ARB should be to “do no harm” to the town’s historicity, and to apply this concern equally to all applicants.
A basic principle is inherent in this debate: are we to have a rule of law that is the same for everyone, or shall we carve out exceptions to the law as we apply it, depending on the status and economic power of the individual concerned.
If we follow' the latter course, we raise the possibility of a successful legal challenge to our governmental processes, and we violate a fundamental principle of government that was established bv Magna Cartain 1215.
LEE BIRD
Washington
93.0%