Building owner Robert Rosenthall wants to put a metal roof on the Beck House, because, he said, it will last longer than an asphalt or fiberglass shingle roof, which is the recommended substitution for the building’s original slate roof. The Board of Architectural Review, citing the city’s historic preservation ordinance regulations on the restoring a historic building, denied the request because it did not meet the regulations.
Rosenthall has filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development over what he believes is unfair treatment from the city because he is black, it’s the latest chapter in 12-year-old battle between Rosenthall and the city over restoring a 139-year-old house built by one of Vicksburg’s former mayors.
The Beck House is in the historic district and on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic house across Adams Street from Rosenthall’s house has a metal roof. A fact Rosenthall has pointed out to the board.
The board said the roof was installed illegally, without its permission or with a city permit. Peggy Shaeffer, who owns the house built in 1886, admits she did not have a permit to install the roof in 1999 and she was forced by the city to stop work but continued and was fined. She said no one from the city told her to remove the red metal roof and replace it with shingles.
Because one of Vicksburg’s attractions is its historic and antebellum buildings, making sure they stay true to their past is important. But in the case of the Beck House, it’s time for a little common sense. Let Robert Rosenthall put a metal roof on the house. By allowing Shaeffer to keep her roof, the city set a precedent, and now it is in a bind. It’s not a case discrimination, it’s a case of right and wrong, and forcing someone to obey a regulation when the city did nothing to stop a previous violation is wrong. The excuse of “we didn’t know about it,” or “we couldn’t do anything about it,” is no excuse. The historic preservation ordinance was in force in 1999, and it should have been enforced by making the homeowner replace the roof. It’s unfair to enforce it against Robert Rosenthall when a prior offense was treated as a minor annoyance.