The Gray-Belle Building in Salem (top) and the Rose Apartments in Portland both used national historic tax credits to preserve affordable and create new housing and both are recipients of the 2021 DeMuro Awards.

The biggest positive change to historic preservation tax credits in a generation could be within reach!

Restore Oregon is partnering with the National Trust Community Investment Corp (NTCIC), Preservation Action, and many others, but we need everyone’s help to ensure that long overdue provisions enhancing the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) program are included in the final infrastructure reconciliation package, also known as the Build Back Better Plan. 

Over the last 20 years, there have been over 144 HTC projects in Oregon generating over $965 million in total development. And four of this year’s Restore Oregon DeMuro Award-winning projects utilized tax credits totaling over $54 million, mostly investing in two affordable housing projects. An enhanced 2.0 version of the historic tax credit could do so much more for Oregon’s historic places.

The post Contact U.S. Senators and Urge Support of Historic Tax Credit Enhancements appeared first on Restore Oregon.

• Support for the Restore America’s Main Street Act, which would provide a tax rebate for small businesses, many of which are struggling to survive in the current climate.
• Improvements to the Historic Tax Credit that would provide more incentive for rehabilitation projects, especially in smaller and rural Main Street communities.
• $9.5 billion in funding for rehabilitation of our National Parks and other public historic assets through the Great American Outdoors Act.
• $420 million in funding for the Historic Preservation Fund, which will be distributed to local and statewide projects.
• $100 million to fund a Main Street Community Recovery and Revitalization Program that would support Main Street Coordinating programs and provide direct support to Main Street businesses.

All of these proposals build on existing programs with proven economic benefits to our communities. We strongly believe that they will activate the power of preservation in helping our nation recover from the current crisis.
With the National Trust for Historic Preservation and other advocates, Restore Oregon has sent a joint letter to Congress in support of these changes. But to be heard, we need your help. 
Please contact your senators and representatives and remind them of the powerful role preservation must play in this moment – and the permanent impact it will have across Oregon.
Find contact information for your congressional representatives and use this sample text in your email.  Include your own examples and stories for greater impact.

Sample Text
Dear ,
As Congress deliberates over the next stimulus package to combat the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, I urge you to remember the critical role that historic preservation can play in economic recovery and job creation.
Time and again, preservation has proven to bolster our civic, social, and economic systems. Our historic places aren’t just bricks and mortar.  They embody our diverse heritage and house our families, small businesses, cultural centers, and places of worship.
In short, historic places are integral to our local economies and deserve investment.  I urge you to support the following policies as you consider the next steps towards Oregon’s recovery and job creation:

• Support the Restore America’s Main Street Act (H.R. 6619) which would provide a tax rebate for small businesses, many of which are struggling to survive in the current climate.
• Support the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act (S. 2615/H.R. 2825). The HTC-GO legislation would enhance the HTC by encouraging more building reuse and further incentivizing redevelopment in all communities, including our smaller and rural Main Street communities.
• Support the Great American Outdoors Act (S. 3422), which will provide $9.5 billion in funding for rehabilitation of our National Parks and other public historic assets through the Great American Outdoors Act.
• $420 million in supplemental funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. This includes: $120 million to State Historic/Tribal Historic Preservation Offices for survey, mapping and pass-through grants to local communities; $75 million for the Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Grant Program; $75 million for the Save America’s Treasures Grant Program; $75 million for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Grant Program; and $75 million for grant funds to sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement.
• $100 million to fund a Main Street Community Recovery and Revitalization Program, a proposal by Main Street America, that would support Main Street Coordinating programs and provide direct support to Main Street businesses.

All of these proposals build on existing programs with proven economic and cultural benefits to our communities. I urge you to support these measures to activate the power of preservation in support of recovery efforts.
Thank you,

The post The Power of Preservation in a Post-Covid-19 Recovery appeared first on Restore Oregon.

Join Restore Oregon in opposing this harmful and unfair proposal.  Submit comments to the Office of the Federal Register by April 30. 
Restore Oregon is joining Preservation Action, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and scores of state and local preservation partners in strongly opposing proposed revisions to the National Register of Historic Places.
The National Park Service, who administers the National Register, is seeking public comment and we invite you to join us in submitting your comments in opposition by April 30^th.
The national advocacy organization, Preservation Action, has provided a helpful summary of how these changes would harm local communities and offers a sample letter  you can customize:
7 Ways the Proposed Revisions Would Negatively Impact Your Community:
 

1. Federal historic properties. Federal agencies will be given total control of whether to nominate properties under their jurisdiction, meaning federally owned historic properties may no longer be added to the National Register of Historic Places.

2. Federal ownership in a historic district. A historic district nomination can be blocked if only one property in the entire district is owned by the US Government and the agency that owns the property objects to listing.

3. Property owner objections. Owners of large properties will be given an outweighed ability to block the listing of historic districts or other nominations to the National Register. Under the proposed revisions, objections to National Register listings will be based on the ownership of a majority of the land area in addition to the current counting of one private owner, one vote. There is no statutory authority to make this change and any such change would place a near impossible burden on State Historic Preservation Officers to implement.

4. Historic Tax Credit Projects. The vast majority of federal historic tax credit projects are in National Register historic districts. Changing the rules for owner objections to nominations will jeopardize the listing of new historic districts, and thus restrict the use of historic tax credits.

5. Section 106. Determinations of eligibility for listing in the National Register are the primary vehicle for considering whether a property is worthy of consideration under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The federal agency, not the Keeper of the National Register, will have the final say on the eligibility of a property under its jurisdiction, thereby thwarting consultation on a project.

6. Appeal Process. By law, any person or local government has the right to appeal the failure of a nominating authority to nominate a property to the National Register. That right will disappear if the property is a federally owned and the agency objects.

7. Consultation with Affected Parties. The proposed revisions falsely claim there would be no impact on federally recognized Indian tribes even though the changes would have a substantial effect on the recognition and consideration of historic places they value, which is contrary to the requirement to consult with tribes. Additionally, the revisions fail to consider potential concerns of State Historic Preservation Officers or others involved in historic preservation who would be drastically impacted and forced to adhere to these new rules.

 
Sample Comment from Preservation Action:
“I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule changes regarding nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The revisions proposed by the National Park Service are inconsistent with the language in and intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and would have a devastating impact on the ability of properties to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The rules were drafted without tribal consultation and failed to consider potential concerns of other affected parties. I write to strongly object to the proposed changes.
Some of the most concerning changes deal with how federal properties are recognized as historic places. The proposed rule would allow federal agencies to effectively block a historic property from being listed on the National Register. Furthermore, the changes would revoke the right of any person or local government to appeal the failure of a nominating authority to nominate a property, if that property is federally owned. Federal properties are often critical to the character of cities and towns across the country. The proposed changes restrict local control of communities to determine the future of their federally owned historic assets and would result in fewer federal properties being added to the National Register.
The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit is a proven preservation and community revitalization tool, which is only available to properties individually listed to the National Register of Historic Places or as part of a historic district. The proposed rules would allow federal agencies owning a property in a proposed historic district to object to the historic district nomination and prevent its listing, limiting the ability of properties to take advantage of these vital tax incentives.
Historic district nominations would be further restricted by giving large property owners an outweighed ability to block nominations to the National Register. Currently, a majority of property owners can object to a historic district nomination. The proposed rules would give State Historic Preservation Officers the near impossible burden of factoring a property owners percentage of total land area in addition to the current process of one private property owner, one vote. There is no statutory authority to make this change.
The rule as proposed in docket #NPS-2019-0001 would dramatically impact the ability of properties to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I strongly urge you to reconsider these changes.”
How to Take Action:

1. Review the sample comment above and make it your own. Include local examples of how the proposed changes would impact preservation in your community and Oregon.
2. Submit comments to the National Park Service before April 30, 2019.
3. Share this post on social media with hashtag #hpadvocacy.

The post Proposed Changes to National Register Rules Would Give Feds Veto Power over Nomination of Government Properties, Stymie Protection of Key Resources. appeared first on Restore Oregon.

Restore Oregon tirelessly advocates on behalf of our collective Oregon heritage and historical preservation. Part of our recent legislative policy action is to provide input on HB 2007, which aims to solve the affordable housing crisis impacting many communities throughout Oregon.
Though HB 2007 started out with good intentions, Restore Oregon is very concerned that the bill will do far more harm than good to both Oregon’s historic districts and to the overall livability of cities and neighborhoods. As an update on HB 2007, Human Services & Housing Committee and Joint Ways & Means Committee heard invitation-only testimonial from several community members on the bill, including our Executive Director, Peggy Moretti. Read her full testimony or listen to the entire HB 2007 meeting.

Watch Restore Oregon’s testimony below:

What’s next?

We will continue to monitor the bill’s progress and keep you up-to-date on changes and any necessary advocacy actions. In the meantime, we will only have 48 hour of notice before they announce the next hearing, so prepare your testimony and stay tuned!

The post Legislative Watch: Restore Oregon Testimony re. HB 2007 appeared first on Restore Oregon.

• Modernize the Federal Historic Tax Credit so that smaller projects can take advantage of this successful 35-year-old incentive program
• Join the Historic Preservation Caucus (now co-chaired by Oregon’s very own Congressman Earl Blumenauer)
• Remind their friends back home and in Salem to vote “yes” on the Revitalize Main Street Act
• And…

The post We’re Headed to DC to Talk Preservation appeared first on Restore Oregon.

1. The value to the community of the proposed use of the property outweighs preservation,
2. Howard Hall is not capable of generating a reasonable economic return,
3. Salem Hospital has made a good faith effort to sell or relocate the building, and
4. No prudent and feasible alternative exists to rehabilitate Howard Hall.

Late last week, staff at the City of Salem issued a finding that Salem Hospital’s proposal meets all four criteria. The citizen Landmarks Commission will take their vote Thursday June 12 at 5:30pm.
While Salem Hospital isn’t in the business of historic preservation, they’re also not in the business of dismantling community relations. If local leaders expect Salem Hospital to be a good neighbor, Salem Hospital can reasonably expect the same of the community. If Salem Hospital gets their demolition permit, there’s no guarantee that the garden will still be there in five years. If preservationists get their demolition denial, it’s a safe assumption that Howard Hall will continue to stagnate. The current dichotomy is lose-lose.
A Vision for Howard Hall
While it might appear the deck is stacked against Howard Hall, there exists a solution that meets Salem Hospital’s expansion needs and saves the historic building: A strategic land swap.
Salem Hospital is bordered by two city parks: the 90-acre Bush Pasture Park to the south and the 4-acre Pringle Park to the west. Pringle Park—away from busy Mission Street and near two tranquil bodies of water—is currently underutilized. It would be a much more appropriate location for the commemorative garden and the patients who would visit it than the site of Howard Hall.
A land swap would allow Salem Hospital to demonstrate their commitment to the community by building and maintaining the garden and playground on an existing open space. Putting Howard Hall into the hands of the City would allow time to plan and fundraise for the reuse of the building as a community asset. While Pringle Park does have a community building, relocating its functions to Howard Hall would undoubtedly be a worthy trade.
The idea of a land swap has been tested in other communities and provides the hospital their legitimate room for growth while affording the opportunity for restoration and reuse of a beloved community landmark.
In the Near Term
Restore Oregon urges the Commission not to grant a demolition permit unless two conditions are met:

1. A one-year good faith stay of demolition that brings all parties together to explore a mutually-beneficial agreement that saves Howard Hall and results in construction of the commemorative garden on an adjacent site, and
2. A 50-year community open space easement be placed on the commemorative garden following its construction to ensure its permanence in the local community.

The community has a powerful bargaining chip in Pringle Park. Salem Hospital has every reason to find an alternative to demolishing Howard Hall. Regardless of the outcome of the Commission vote, both sides still have an opportunity to sit down and craft a win-win vision. Seizing this opportunity will bless Salem with not just a viable historic building and a meaningful commemorative garden, but with the lasting satisfaction that ingenuity and collaboration prevailed.

 

The post Can a New Vision Save Salem’s Historic School for the Blind? appeared first on Restore Oregon.

1. Never give up hope. The pro bono attorney who undertook the LUBA appeal committed to do so on the Saturday before the Tuesday filing deadline! This news came on the heels of countless rejections from other attorneys who had a conflict or could not spare the time.
2. If possible, lay the groundwork before a preservation crisis develops. Build the organization’s relationship with the media, local government officials, and other non-profits. Show support by partnering with and joining other organizations as members. When you need allies, you won’t need to hastily educate them about your organization and its mission.
3. There are more people that support you than you realize. Once you start publicizing the issue, you’ll find those who support your cause and your organization. Conversely, there will always be those in opposition so just take that in stride. You can’t please everyone.
4. Keep a sense of humor. Our current theme song is: “Happy Days are Here Again.”
   With apologies to Irving Berlin, our former theme song was, to the tune of “Heat Wave,”
   I’m having a breakdown
   A psychological breakdown
   The anxiety’s rising
   It isn’t surprising
   It certainly hit the fan, fan
5. Be proactive. Know your community’s building and development code and seek to strengthen protections for historic properties, locally and statewide, before applications for delisting or demolition are submitted.
   

   

6. When testifying before hearing bodies always keep the focus of your testimony on the criteria and resist the temptation to dwell on emotional responses. Do your homework and don’t assume that all pertinent facts will be included in the staff report. Make sure that all documents that support your arguments are entered into the record. No new information can be introduced on appeal.
7. Recognize that a long and intense battle can have a negative impact on your personal life. A campaign like this one, that has already spanned six months, can take a toll on you and your family members. Historic preservation activism is not for the faint of heart.
8. There is always an “up” side, regardless of the outcome, including more awareness of the community’s history, increased visibility and membership for your own organization, as well as stronger partnerships with other groups. Celebrate your successes and make note of what you can improve on next time—because there will be a next time.
9. Use the power of the media. Although the developer vs. the preservationist story may seem old hat, it’s the local specifics that make it newsworthy. Although obvious, it bears repeating that you should use all media at your disposal—local television stations, local and statewide newspapers, editorials, Twitter, Facebook, the organization’s own website, newsletter, and email blasts, etc.
10. Legal battles are costly so you can’t fight all of them. As they say, “pick your battles.” If a legal defense fund has not already been established, create one and solicit donations in every way possible, including online fundraising tools such as fundrazr or gofundme. Raising money is critical to waging a successful campaign because the opposition often has very deep pockets. Keep in mind that it’s more about purse strings than heartstrings.
11. Recognize that the land use public hearing process is, by nature, adversarial – you either testify for or against the application. Although it has yet to come about in this instance, the Society has successfully worked out solutions when both sides came to the table to brainstorm business-friendly solutions that would involve retention of a historic structure. This also gives you the opportunity to discuss benefits that the owners may not be aware such as placing the house on the National Register of Historic Places. If the owners are non-responsive, don’t give up, simply ask again.
12. Be flexible in searching for solutions outside of the land use hearing process and make sure to explore all of your non-legal options. For example, meet with City officials to determine if the City would be willing to purchase the endangered historic property either as a community asset or to protect and resell it. Also investigate repurposing the structure; relocating it, including use as a possible secondary dwelling unit; and deconstructing it and storing it for potential rebuilding on a different site. If all else fails, try to gain access to thoroughly document the property so there is a record for future historians.

LUBA is expected to hear the Carman House case sometime in the spring.

The post Next Stop LUBA: Lessons Learned from the Carman House appeared first on Restore Oregon.

The post A Preservation Perspective on Portland’s Gas & Coke Building appeared first on Restore Oregon.