New London landlord William Cornish doesn't strike me as very persuasive in his arguments about why he should be allowed to tear down two buildings he owns in the downtown historic district.

Both buildings — the empty 130 Bank St. and the neighboring building at 116 Bank St., now leased to New London Ink, a successful tattoo business that has remodeled its space and wants to stay — are part of the downtown district, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

City preservationists have collected hundreds of signatures on petitions to save the buildings and plan to take their case to the state Historic Preservation Council, which could ask the attorney general to intervene with a lawsuit, as he successfully has done in the past to save other historical buildings around the state.

Preservationists make a convincing argument that the buildings, their size and shape, are part of the streetscape that in its entirety makes Bank Street such an appealing environment, the remainder of a busy 19th-century port.

Each building is part of a whole, and that's the way they are included on the national register: as a district, in which various buildings each contribute.

And that is how they are protected by state law, which literally refers to these and other historical buildings as part of the state's natural resources.

Removing one could impact the value of all the neighboring buildings.

Cornish, in buying 130 Bank St. last year, for $206,000 in cash, was represented by the law firm of City Law Director Jeffrey Londregan.

I can't understand why Cornish, who owns some nine buildings downtown, can claim he didn't know that he could be prevented from tearing down a building on the national register. It seems a sophisticated investor would understand this.

And if he didn't know the perils in getting a permit to tear down a historical building, shouldn't his lawyer have explained the process as he completed the purchase?

After all, the building at 130 Bank St., which New London Landmarks, leading the preservation campaign, says has been found to be structurally sound by an engineer, lingered on the market for a long while. Other prospective buyers must have known it would be hard to tear down.

Cornish says he will replace the two buildings with one larger one, with more rentable space, that he says would be historically appropriate.

But he says the design of that building remains "in my head" and he has no plans to produce any professional renderings before the demolition takes place. It is also not clear the city would allow a much bigger building on those two lots.

Cornish says he is not interested in offers by the state Historic Preservation Office staff to provide assistance with architectural design, grants and tax credits that might be used to save and rehabilitate the two buildings, even in making them bigger.

In other words, no compromises will be considered.

I am also not sympathetic to Cornish's suggestion that he is being unfairly singled out. Indeed, the last time I remember anyone proposing an unnecessary demolition in the historic district, it led to the successful campaign to save Union Station and the creation of New London Landmarks decades ago.

It also strikes me that someone who presides over scores of dilapidated and vacant downtown buildings could be endlessly harassed on building code compliance by buildings officials if they really wanted to single him out.

Indeed, the former city councilor, who has donated generously to Democrats over the years, seems to enjoy a good relationship with city officialdom.

It is time, as the battle unfolds, for the mayor and City Council to loudly add their voices to those of their many constituents who wish to preserve what makes New London so special. Pass a resolution showing the state Historic Preservation Council that preservation matters here.

If you ruin the historic fabric of the downtown with precedent-setting demolition, you are snuffing out renaissance potential.

Let's hope the mayor and councilors loudly choose preservation over cronyism.

This is the opinion of David Collins.

d.collins@theday.com