Louise Sproule’s recent editorial about the current council’s indifference to heritage buildings in Champlain Township (“Champlain council laid an egg by ignoring heritage,” 9 August) was, in my opinion, logical, passionate, and wonderfully written.
I doubt, though, that it will change any council members minds’ and have them vote to revisit the suggestion of maintaining a heritage inventory. I do hope that it will encourage voters to ensure that the candidates they support in a future election care a fig about the history and heritage of their community. These structures are a vital link to our past, and they provide physical evidence as to who we were, and what we were able to accomplish as a society.
If one wishes to focus on dollars and cents, preserving heritage structures also aids in developing tourism in small towns. Ask the people of Perth and Merrickville, to cite but two examples, about the importance of being an attractive destination for tourists, and I am sure that they will have something positive to say.
And heritage buildings — from barns to general stores to mansions — are lovely to view. Compare them to the generic plazas, drab apartments, prefab houses and fast-food outlets that are increasingly becoming significant parts of rural communities. These eyesores will be part of the legacy that these current, development-obsessed municipal councillors leave to their citizens. By any meaningful standard, they are not attractive. And believe me, time will not improve their appearances.