Members of the Building Owners and Managers Association are being asked to come out in force Wednesday evening to counter expected testimony that demolition denial equates to good historic preservation. "The ONLY thing that will turn this around will be testimony and letters from you," says an email sent out to members that included a sample letter that could be modified and sent on to the office of Mayor Vera Katz, who is said to be in favor of the proposal.

The sample letter says the reasons for not approving the proposal "are multifaceted, but can be crystallized in the single notion that demolition denial in absence of preservation incentives is a bad policy and fundamentally counterproductive. I can appreciate the desire for a fail-safe strategy to protect buildings essential to our City's heritage, (but) the current discussion of demolition denial of National Register properties … does not achieve these goals. As policy, it is essentially trying to change a light bulb with a hammer."

One argument against the proposal in the letter states that the National Register is a partial inventory of buildings over 50 years old in good condition; not a qualitative compilation of the City's best architecture. Another is that existing City code criteria for demolition review is ill defined and treats non-profit and for-profit companies differently. Private for-profit property owners are required to demonstrate that the property has no viable "economic use"--which would mean not even fit for storage)--while non-profits need only show that the building can produce "no reasonable economic return."