Churches in Ontario are trying to persuade the government to change a proposed law that could, if passed, let the province designate a property as a heritage site and saddle the owners with the upkeep — even if a congregation is no longer viable. Only a last-minute intervention in Dec. by an ecumenical delegation prevented a third and final reading of proposed changes to the Heritage Act from becoming law. Churches were not consulted during the legislative planning process, said Archdeacon Harry Huskins, an Anglican Church representative. "The government assumed that churches were backed by large national denominations with millions of dollars to maintain these buildings," said Huskins. "They didn't realize that the money comes in on the plate one Sunday and goes out the next."
Thanks to the churches' opposition last year, talks between the Ministry of Culture and Anglican, Roman Catholic and United Church representatives are currently ongoing.
The Presbyterian Church's synod of Toronto and Kingston supports the churches' position. "We're not opposed to the heritage designation," said synod clerk Rev. Jeffrey Smith. "But we're looking for some kind of financial help to maintain these buildings. There's nothing in the changes that speak to that."
The act assumes that buildings designated as heritage sites are commercial or government properties that have the financial backing to maintain them. "It did not consider that churches may not have that ability," said Smith.
The current Heritage Act is unchanged since it was passed in 1975. The McGuinty government brought the act to the house for its first reading in April 2004, proposing changes that would give better protection to heritage properties. Currently, the act can only delay demolition of old buildings, giving owners time to find another solution. The changes could protect the building from demolition indefinitely.
In addition, the proposed amendments would include an appeal process to respect the rights of property owners — something Huskins said has needed revision for some time. The current format lacks criteria for appeals and judgments. Furthermore, most small congregations can't afford the hefty price tag of hiring a lawyer and technical experts needed to make a case to the Ontario Municipal Board. Government and various churches are currently discussing how the appeals process can be improved.
Supporters of Bill 60 say heritage properties add to the culture of a city, and are evidence of the community's roots and history. Such history must be protected from developers wanting to build lucrative high-rises. A small-scale example is Chalmers Presbyterian Church in Toronto. It was demolished in the '60s and a variety store now sits in its place. According to a spokeswoman at the Ministry of Culture, there are 54 religious properties in Ontario — meaning a church or manse — identified as Presbyterian. "There was a real concern that developers were using some weak parts of the act, before anything was able to be done to stop them," said Huskins. "We fully support tightening this up, but there were unintended consequences to churches."
Catherine Nasmith, an architect and vice president of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, is angered by the opposition to the bill. She said protecting heritage buildings should be a top priority for communities, and churches are disrupting 30 years of hard work to give the current act more bite. "Churches don't have the title to the building; it belongs to everyone who helped build it." This includes architects, masons, investors, donors and parishioners. "These buildings cannot be taken down. They're too symbolically loaded and have too much of our collective emotions built into them."
Problems stem from dwindling congregations' inability to maintain their large, old buildings. Selling the building to save money and put it towards ministry instead of maintenance is a strategy many churches have adopted over the years. Although not often the case in rural areas, some Toronto churches have been able to take advantage of unique urban situations. Several decades ago, the congregation at St. Andrew's, King St., sold their air rights to a developer who wanted to build beyond height regulations. The move was approved by the city. The church has used the funds to refurbish the church and develop an inner-city mission.
Nasmith said if the churches' problem is financial, laws should be put in place that first protect heritage properties as cultural assets, and financial supports should be created for those entrusted with caring for historic sites.
Huskins said the current discussions between the government and churches are being done "in good faith", and if all goes well, it is hoped the act will make it to the house for its third reading on March 29. "There is a need for churches and the government to discuss how to handle these difficult situations," said Huskins. "We're not in conflict. There are solutions."
