Dear Editor:
I am a Queen’s Park resident who is opposed to this neighbourhood being declared a heritage conservation area.
My understanding of the proposal is that it will prohibit the teardown of homes built prior to 1950, without special approval being granted; and that all homes will be subject to various other renovation restrictions.
This proposal, disproportionately and unfairly, impacts those of us who own houses built prior to 1950 which are not grand and impressive heritage homes. Those beautiful homes, generously scattered throughout the neighbourhood, will always be valued for their heritage qualities. They are not the target of developers; they are worth significantly more than their lot value; their market will continue to be buyers who cherish and value those homes for their style. This heritage conservation proposal has no negative impact on them.
The same is not true for the owners of more modest homes built prior to 1950, or those with less heritage appeal. This proposal unfairly limits options for these owners. The owners of these homes may wish to do significant renovations; they may wish to rebuild; they may wish to sell to developers. These owners should not be faced with more expense and red tape to proceed with these options. It will reduce property values – particularly for homes which are lot value only. Queen’s Park will lose out on the addition of new homes and the improvement of these types of properties.
I have lived in this city for the better part of the past 40 years; for much longer than that Queen’s Park has been known for its heritage homes, wide boulevards and tree-lined streets. Residents pay a premium to live here because of this. There is no pressing risk to the character of this neighbourhood. It does appear, however, there is a pressing risk to the freedom of choice and to the property rights of the homeowners in this neighbourhood.
What is the concern? That outsiders will come in and change the character of our neighbourhood? This is a concern without any basis in reality. And, in my view, if an owner prefers a more unique, non-‘heritage’ style, they should be allowed to express that style. It is, after all, their house.
Anne Demeulemeester, New Westminster
