Our Opinion

Everyone who spoke at Monday’s Gordonsville Planning Commission meeting shared a common interest. They all lived in Gordonsville and owned property there. They recognized the inherent significance and beauty of the town because their properties help comprise that collective charm.
Where they differ is how to protect that.
To ride down Main Street Gordonsville is to ride through the past. Dozens of antebellum homes line the streets and comprise much of the town’s core. Nearly 30 years ago, Gordonsville officials secured a historic district for these properties, recognizing their cultural, architectural and historical significance.
While there are more than 100 properties within the district–which roughly runs from the traffic circle to the Exchange Hotel–there are no provisions to protect those properties from demolition, nor to prevent new construction not complementary to existing architecture.
Last fall, a handful of Gordonsville citizens approached the town council about establishing a historic overlay that would protect these properties.
Monday night, the town’s planning commission heard the first wave of public commentson the proposal–none of which surprised them. They heard objections to control, oversight and invasive government. They heard fierce defense of property rights. They heard laments of lost structures in town.
Whether speakers were for or against the proposed historic district overlay, the commission heard people who care about their properties and their town and want to protect it.
The question is whether or not that protection is better achieved individually or collectively.
Property owners will never get behind an ordinance that tells them what color they can paint their homes and we suspect the town council wouldn’t either. This ordinance wouldn’t do that.
The local historic district would be established to preserve the unique character of historic buildings and surroundings, while encouraging new construction to include architectural designs that complement historic buildings. 
The land and structures in the town’s historic district reflect an important part of the cultural heritage of the region. A locally protected district maintains high property values while preserving the heritage of a community for future generations. It also contributes to the economic viability and vitality of the region.
Few can argue with the benefits.
To have a historic district overlay, the town would need a board of architectural review (BAR) that would review projects proposed by property owners within the district. The BAR would assess projects submitted and make recommendations. If the project is approved, the BAR will issue a certificate of appropriateness.
The BAR would be appointed by the town council and comprised of Gordonsville Historic District property owners. And, property owners not offered certificates of appropriateness could appeal the BAR’s ruling to the town’s board of zoning appeals and ultimately the town council. 
We like the idea that there would be a layer of protection before historic structures in the district could be demolished.
How great would it be to still have the Gordon Inn or the old C & O train station? In the early 1980s, the Exchange Hotel was on its deathbed. Now, it’s one of the highlights of town, thankfully saved from the wrecking ball. So, in that respect, we think the town should have some say before folks tear down buildings in the historic district. And we think most folks would get behind that-knowing what we’ve lost already and what we’ve almost lost.
Collectively, we make up the town. Collectively, we maintain our properties that make it the community it is. Collectively, we can figure out an ordinance that is in all our best interests-which, after all, seem to be pretty similar.