Milford is a city rich in history. This history can and has been seen all around the city – from downtown and the Green to the beaches and waterfront – ever since Milford was founded in 1639.

It is because of Milford’s rich history that there has recently been a proposal to create a historic district on some of the residential streets of the downtown community.

While most people would agree that the initial idea of a historic district created in the city sounds like an appropriate way to reflect Milford’s past, most people do not know exactly what the creation of a historic district would imply. In addition to just being declared a historic district, homeowners living in the district will be required to follow a “district ordinance,” which would restrict some of their rights to develop, add-on, or make modifications to their property in an effort to preserve the historic significance of the district.

Proposed historic districts are not only limited to Milford. Proposals such as this are going on constantly all around the country. The recent proposal in Milford brings into the light the topic of homeowner rights in the local community.

There are several key reasons why the creation of a historic district in Milford is not the best course of action to take to preserve the past in Milford.

Homeowners have a right to their property and should be allowed to develop it as they see fit, within reason. As long as a property modification does not infringe on another homeowner’s property rights, their actions should be allowed.

Although potential regulations in the proposed district would not regulate things such as the paint color of a home, it would regulate changes to things such as windows and fencing, as well as require a homeowner to submit an application to the Historic District Commission for approval before being issued permits for modification. This would consequently result in a homeowner being limited as to their choice of fencing and desired, non-historic modifications such as porches.

Milford’s history is not found in only one neighborhood or just in the proposed historic district. Although concentrated in the downtown region, history can be found in the fabric of almost any neighborhood, street, or borough of the city.

If houses in the proposed district are of a particular historical stature, the district proposal should proceed in name only, with the historical value emphasized without imposing restrictions on the residents within it.

Residents desiring more of a historic era feel to their property should have the personal choice to keep their houses more “traditional.”

Additionally, it would be wise for residents of the district to exhibit common sense in their personal choice of exterior home modification. They should respect their neighbors who want a more historic feel and not develop something that is overly ridiculous on their property simply because they may have the “right” to do so.

The proposed historic district has an unbalanced, but legal and statute-binding “opt-out” plan in which residents residing on the outer boarders of the proposed district can decide not to become part of it. However, residents among the inner proposed district cannot opt-out of the district unless everyone from the outer boarder in has, which is not a fair way to represent an inner resident’s desire not to become part of a restrictive historic district.

Alderman Dominick Veccharelli Jr., a member of the Historic District Commission and resident of the outer perimeter of the proposed district, opted not to be included in the district.

In addition to an unbalanced opt-out plan, there is also a similarly unfair voting process to decide whether or not the historic district is established. For the district to move forward, two-thirds of the residents of the proposed district must vote in favor of its creation.

However, those who were on the outer edge who did not want to be part of the district and who would have voted “no” on its creation are no longer considered for the vote because they have chosen to opt-out. This makes it difficult for the resident in opposition on the outer edge to decide what to do: opt-out of the district or stay in and vote against it.

History is important, for without it there can be no future. But restricting a homeowner’s rights is not the proper way to go about preserving the past.