By Karen Lilly-Bowyer

It seems clear that the Grubb-Sigmon-Weisiger House was used as a political pawn at Tuesday’s city council meeting. 

Mayor Karen Alexander voted against the individual designation of the house as an historic landmark based on the idea that Salisbury does not have a procedure in place for this type of designation. I suggest that the mayor needs to look at the city’s website page for historical preservation. The process is explained in detail, and it is noted that the city ordinance, with reference to individual landmarks, was changed in 2017. 

The mayor went on to say that possibly only commercial buildings should be considered for designation. Well, that horse has already left the barn. The first property designated by the city after the city ordinance was changed was a private dwelling.

The second property designated was the Empire Hotel. Is it possible the city council changed the ordinance to meet the needs of the city in their efforts to resurrect the old hotel? If the city choses to renege on the designation of individual landmarks, does that mean the three properties recognized as individual landmarks would lose their designation? I would suggest that would be fair. 

What happens to the old hotel’s prospects if that should happen? I don’t believe that the city government should be allowed to have it both ways. 

The idea of only accepting commercial buildings, or as Councilman David Post suggested, property located in one of Salisbury’s historic districts is certainly arbitrary and would be fodder for an interesting legal argument. Does that mean the only historically important properties are located in the downtown area? Based on Post’s argument, none of the historic properties in the rural areas of Rowan County, such as the Neely School or the R.A. Clement School or any number of individual homes should be considered historically significant.

I believe that most of Salisbury’s citizens would disagree with Post’s assessment.

Mayor Alexander went on to say that the process of designating individual landmark could become very expensive because the designated properties receive a 50% tax credit. This credit is mandated by the state of North Carolina to help property owners offset the expenses associated with the high cost of maintaining the historic integrity of properties. An example of this would be the need to maintain wooden windows or replacing a roof with materials that were available 100 years ago.

The tax credit is a token. It certainly does not offset the property owners’ cost to maintain an historic property. The mayor’s argument is weak. Since the ordinance was passed in 2017, only three properties have passed the stringent state historic property guidelines and have been presented for local designation. I don’t think the 50% tax break on those properties will wreck the city budget. The Grubb-Sigmon-Weisiger House would have been the fourth property on the city list. 

Post argued any property that was at least 50 years old could apply for National Register of Historic Places recognition, and therefore, these properties could be nominated for local recognition. That is a very uninformed concern. Properties are not presented based on age. The criteria are very specific and the property must prove its individual significance.

The Grubb-Sigmon-Weisiger House has been recognized by the United States National Parks Service as a significant local historic property through the National Register of Historic Places. It has also been recognized and approved by the North Carolina office of Historic Preservation.

Why would Mr. Post or Mayor Alexander believe that it should not also be recognized by the city of Salisbury?

Karen Lilly-Bowyer lives in Salisbury and presented the home’s application to the Salisbury City Council last week.