What would have happened in Italy?

Originally published in Il Mosaico, June 2019 from The Dante Alighieri Society of Michigan - Detroit Metropolitan Area

My son and I were watching a car show on TV. In a segment, the presenters were running a super-car race inside a frescoed French Renaissance style building, formerly a theater -now a parking structure: the Michigan Theater in Detroit. While watching, the question came up: “cosa sarebbe successo in Italia?”

According to Historic Detroit “[t]he 4,038-seat Michigan Theatre was designed in the French Renaissance style in 1925 and was simply unrivaled in Detroit in elegance at the time. The Michigan was built at Bagley and Cass avenues at a cost of more than $3.5 million ($42.4 million today, when adjusted for inflation).” The Michigan Theater closed as a theater in 1976. “In 1977, the building’s owners paid $525,000 to gut the theater and build a three-level, 160-space parking deck inside it. The mezzanine and balcony were brought down, as was the grand staircase and one wall of the grand lobby.” Historic Detroit explains.

Both Italy and the U.S. have laws regarding historic preservation aiming at protecting historic property and cultural heritage. In both countries building permitting occurs mostly at the local levels and conditions may be imposed on use of the property in the case public funds were received for its restoration or maintenance. In spite of these similarities, differences are considerable.

Cosa sarebbe successo in Italia?

The first difference lies with the Constitutions. The United States Constitution limits the powers of the State in several ways which affect the force with which the State could protect historic properties. In the first place, the Takings Clause does not allow the State to interfere with private ownership; secondly, the First Amendment limits the possibility of historic preservation ordinances being enforced against religious owners, as it could be argued the State would be limiting the FreeExercise Clause. On the other hand, the Constitution of Italy grants the State the authority over the promotion and the protection of its heritage.

Based on this authority, the State has exclusive powers to promote and enhance historic patrimony and to guarantee its conservation. It must protect, and demand protection of, historic property within its territory, be that public, private, or belonging to religious organizations.

As regards legislation, the U.S. National Historic Properties Act (NHPA) does not determine duties for preservation and protection. The goal of the Act is to identify historic properties and have interested parties integrate through a strict consultation process. The Federal government’s only responsibility is to “accelerate historic preservation programs” and to cooperate with state and local governments to achieve this goal, nothing else. Clearly, these duties are in sharp contrast with those the Italian Code imposes, which are to ensure, support, and guarantee the enhancement and maintenance of historic property. The Code represents the main legislative reference for the protection, conservation and enhancement of the Italian historic property.

The Italian Code gives the State the power to police the condition of historic property, to authorize restoration or maintenance work, to issue permits, and even to determine which professions are authorized to work on the properties. It imposes the duty of conservation on public institutions, but also on private organizations or individuals, and even on religious organizations. Inspectors visit sites before, during, and after the works are carried out, their thumbs up or down can make an immense difference in terms of the timing and cost of a project.

What about the Michigan Theater, then?

The cost of restoring or even maintaining a historic propriety can be huge. Given the lack of teeth the NHPA has, one way the U.S. incentivizes protection for historic property is to provide tax relief for work done to buildings and sites listed on the National Register of Historic Properties. Today, those incentives correspond to a reduction in income tax of up to 20% of the costs incurred on improvements for the property. Still, not enough considering there is no duty to preserve the property. It is far cheaper to demolish the deteriorated building or assign it to another purpose – such as a parking structure.

If the Michigan Theater were situated in Italy, the owners would have had the duty to restore and maintain it, and to pay for such work. The Italian Code imposes the costs of interventions on historic property on the owners or possessors. In the case the Ministry (Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo) decides to do the restoration itself, all expenses are passed on to the owner or possessor in a percentage decided by the Ministero.

Some of the cost incurred by private owners could be somehow offset with governmental refunds. However, these are not commonly requested as the procedure takes too long and is complicated. In short, turning back to the original question of what would have happened if the privately owned Michigan Theater had been situated in Italy; for sure it would not have been turned into a public parking structure, let alone appear on an Amazon show, if it had been—otherwise owners could have faced not only civil but criminal charges. In addition, the owners would have had to pay for the restoration and maintenance, and probably open the property to the public – at least partially. Are those too heavy a burden for historic property owners or just right to keep our cultural heritage in good shape for the future generations?