Desire to preserve heritage cannot infringe on owners' rights

It was clearly demonstrated at Monday night's Township council meeting that there's little desire to see the Pringle House in Nobleton demolished. And there is hope that some way can be found to keep it standing.

That's good news, because we understand the importance that many people place on preserving our past.

But that being said, we also have to remember that while Township councillors have an obligation to respect the past, they were elected to govern in the present. That rightly imposes upon them an obligation to do what's right by the current owners of the property.

There is disagreement about the structural soundness of the house, and it's owner, Maria Gallo, made an excellent point Monday night, when she asked if the house is in good shape, why are they having trouble getting it insured. A valid issue that needs to be addressed. There are others.

Acquiring property carries with it certain responsibilities, and if the property involves a house that's more than 100 years old and important to the heritage of the community, there is a certain obligation to preserve it. But the community has an obligation too, and that includes not imposing requirements that are too onerous on a property owner.

It could be argued that expecting a property owner to foot the entire bill for the preservation of a house is excessive, especially when it's others who are pushing hardest for that preservation. Few of us would be very happy to be blithely told by the community what we can or cannot do with our property, entirely at our own expense.

We do hope this house can be saved, but it has to be done in a way that's fair to both sides. That is the community's obligation.