Columns from The Union 02/2001

Thom Staser's House: Gone But Not Forgotten
Published Saturday, February 10, 2001

The demolition of Thom Staser’s house on Sacramento Street will not fade quickly from our memory, despite Mrs. Staser’s letter to The Union asking the public to move on. There are two big reasons the story will linger: the drama and the underlying issues.

First, the story has a better plot than most cable TV shows. A local boy (not some rich Flatlander), well loved by his neighbors, wants to rebuild the old homestead so his mother can have a better place to live. The house falls into a category known as Mother Lode architecture.

But the house has no foundation and is also in disrepair. The owner is advised by his engineer that it would be better to tear it down and start over, re-using materials from the old structure. But is that allowed? In Nevada City’s Historic District, the will of the public regarding preservation is well understood, and there are some tough rules. But this house is not in the district. So theoretically, he has no problem.

After months and way too time and effort with the Planning Commission, he gets the go ahead, and the Planning Commission believes it has done its job correctly. But there’s an appeal! The city council holds a well attended public hearing. The public speaks forcefully for and against. There’s also a compelling slide show of successful renovations. The presentation makes it clear that preserving our architecture is no mere hobby -- preserving Nevada City’s appearance is essential to its survival.

The City Council issues a stay of execution for This Old House by a vote of 5-0. The house must be restored. End of story.

Not end of story. I would assume that Thom Staser concluded that he still had legal and moral authority to pursue demolition. It’s his property, he has concerns for his family, and it would cost a lot of money to restore the existing structure. And it would be his money, not money from the people who objected to demolition.

So on a Saturday morning, the F-117 Stealth Bulldozers came, and made the house a vacant lot. Done! Punishment: a $100 fine for Staser.

Honestly, folks, you can’t get this stuff on channel 231! This event immediately made Staser the poster child for property rights advocates, and earns him a place with the Blasius family (NID trails/roads) and the Haldanes (flume construction access). To put this in proportion, it can’t complete in scale with the scandalous "secret land clearing" practiced in constructing the Pine Creek shopping center.

Aside from the events above, the Staser family should realize that this story is no longer about them personally. It’s about Nevada County’s eternal conflicts over land use, property rights, and preservation. You are well aware from reading these pages that we all have concerns over "growth" and "progress," and the prices we pay for them. What should we keep and what should we throw away?

For the future, maybe some of the following can serve as a prescription for success in Nevada City:

The public must redefine its will about preservation and communicate that will to city government.

City government must develop the clearest set of rules possible, and must communicate them to property owners. Property owners need know exactly what it means to own a house in the Historic District and outside the district. There must also be some flexibility.

Property owners need to understand property responsibilities as well as property rights. It would be in their best interest to maintain and upgrade their properties. Restoration relies primarily on the motivation and good will of the property owner.

Real estate agents must make it clear to newcomers what they’re in for if they buy an old home in the district.

Constructors must teach homeowners that they can restore and actually make profits from doing so! They need to show that putting in a foundation is not tough as people think.

Government must engage private parties to provide guidance, example books, and historical advice to homeowners. Homeowners need to see the value of restoration.

Government can assist in getting grant money or historical preservation money for people willing to rehabilitate property.

One cardinal rule, however, is that if you tear something down, it’s gone forever. So let’s be very careful about destroying our past.

Barry Schoenborn is a technical writer, and a 12-year resident of Nevada County. His column appears the second Saturday of the month. barry@wvswrite.com is his e-mail address. The opinions of columnists are not necessarily those of The Union.

Back