A review of the state’s historic preservation laws may identify ways to better deal with buildings located close to historical sites.

Whenever a state finds its laws are significantly out of step with those in other states, it’s worth a second look.

That apparently is the case with Kansas’ approach to protecting structures not because they are historic but because they are located near other structures that have been listed on the state’s register of historic places. The Kansas State Historical Society has convened a group of historic preservation “stakeholders” to review the impact of the law.

Lawrence residents are fully aware of the impact of the “environs” law. This part of the state’s historic preservation law came into play in a debate that eventually had to be settled by Gov. Bill Graves over the demolition of three houses in the 1300 block of Ohio Street. It also resulted in what, in retrospect, was a somewhat silly decision to require Borders bookstore to preserve a single wall of the brick building it was replacing on the southeast corner of Seventh and New Hampshire.

Often, it seems, the law that affects structures within 500 feet of a designated historic site is used by people or groups whose primary goal isn’t historic preservation. People in the Oread neighborhood were largely concerned about Kansas University’s encroachment into their neighborhood. The battle about Borders was fueled as much by opposition to a national chain bookstore as by historic preservation.

Those other concerns may be valid, but they are not about historic preservation. That means that the state’s preservation laws often get mixed up with other contentious local issues, creating tensions and bad feeling toward preservation.

Some people who might otherwise support preservation of significant local buildings become suspicious of historic designations because they fear the review process and potential conflicts that come along with them. And, too often, issues that should be settled at the local level get passed on to state officials who may or may not fully understand the implications of their decision.

Few cities in Kansas have as much history worthy of preservation as Lawrence does. Those who led efforts to save such notable buildings as the Douglas County Courthouse, the Watkins Bank Building and the Union Pacific Depot deserve the community’s thanks. There is, however, a tricky balance between preservation and private property rights that seems to be increasingly difficult to define.

If state officials discover that changes are warranted, Lawrence officials will want to review and perhaps adjust local historic preservation laws accordingly. Even if the state “stakeholders” determine that existing laws are serving Kansas well, the review nonetheless is justified to make sure the preservation laws are serving the purpose for which they were created.