There are hundreds of historic buildings scattered around Bainbridge Island, perhaps as many as 400 potential nominees for the island’s Historic Register of landmark properties. The number is an estimate provided by the local Historic Preservation Commission, which has taken at least three inventories of such properties during the last 20 years.

Currently there are 15 properties on the list, all but three of which (Yeomalt Cabin, the Eagle Harbor Congregational Church and the schoolhouse that now contains the island’s Historic Museum) are old houses. With all that antiquity still standing, one could surmise that most islanders believe the past should be honored by preserving the island’s history, certainly structures built more than 100 years ago.

However, even buildings on the Historic Register are unprotected from a wrecking ball. Perhaps most will be saved for the time being because their owners have indicated they value the buildings simply by nominating them for placement on the list. But if ownership were to change, it’s possible the buildings could be torn down overnight. That’s because the registry is honorary and nothing more, which is also true of the national and state listings.

The city has been involved in such issues during recent months because of a property owner’s desire to tear down the 106-year-old house located at 216 Ericksen Ave. and replace it with commercial and residential buildings. The house and five others located nearby have been identified as historic buildings, but none has been placed on the local Historic Register.

All six are now used as commercial properties, so it wasn’t surprising that someone bought 216 Ericksen with the intent of making better use of the choice property since it is located only a few hundred feet north of Winslow Way.

However, things became complicated when the owner entered the city’s permit process.

When the issue reached the city’s Design Review Board (DRB), the advisory group initially recommended denial of the application to the planning commission and planning department because it would require razing the historic building. Previously, the state’s Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation had opined that demolition of the house “may have an adverse impact on cultural resources” and would be inconsistent with the city Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan.

While it’s true that both the city’s code and comp plan call for guidelines to “identify and preserve historic and cultural resources,” the city has no ordinance that makes such preservation mandatory. In other words, there’s no teeth in that watchdog.

The city’s planners received legal advice that there was no justification to mandate the saving of the structure and took the stance that the DRB’s task was to look only at the owner’s site plan and disregard the existing house. The DRB returned with another denial, this time based on the proposed building’s conformance to its surroundings.

This led to the owner and his architect returning to the DRB earlier this week with some facade revisions, followed by the board’s approval of the new design. So, one down and five to go?

During the meeting, the DRB members had a brief discussion about the possibility of passing an ordinance that makes preservation mandatory, but planner Bob Katai, essentially parroting his boss, Planning Director Kathy Cook, said that setting standards for such an ordinance would be complicated and controversial because it likely would place a restriction on the use of a person’s property.

As Will Shopes, chair of the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, put it: “That sort of thing would never get done on this island because people would be screaming about their property rights.” Seattle has a restrictive ordinance that will enforce preservation of local landmarks, but it is very selective about using it.

While DRB realizes it can’t stop houses from being demolished, it would at least like to see the city retain what’s left of Ericksen’s quaint neighborhood, though much of it is already gone in the wake of construction of a few large, homely office buildings now existing on the street.

While more and more historic buildings are being replaced by new developments, Shopes realizes that the responsibility of preservation lies primarily with the public and the owners of historic buildings, since the city really has very little recourse in the matter under current legislation and apparently no inclination to challenge the rights of property owners.

He believes the community in general needs to make it clear that it values preservation and should attempt to persuade owners to do whatever is possible to keep their older buildings standing. There are some tax incentives available, but preservation efforts are mostly labors of love.

An effort, such as the one that saved the Grand Forest, certainly would be in line here. Not just for the Ericksen houses, but for whatever the community deems worth saving.

It’s an either-or situation: make a list of what’s valuable and then attempt to save them, or slowly lose many valued historic structures as the island becomes more and more developed.