If there was a line item and the description was funding to maintain a building and there was a way it could be done without the conflict of interest which was stated below and true, I'd be all for it. (PS I actually missed your wording of "line item") but it came to mind just the same as you put it.
There is the side of this you mention, no doubt and that is exactly why its coming down. I have a background in heavy/commercial construction and know large buildings as much as the next guy, not all will stand the test of time and not all of those will because of disrepair, it does take funds.
An industrial building built for manufacturing, long obsolete, unless there is a re-use and its feasible, ok fine lets do it, but like so many of those sites, its impractical, not feasible and as is without site remediation its a hazard, it has to be made right and rightfully so for the community, yes I love old architecture too, but agree with you on that, some don't and they have a right not to, but in the long run, its for the best when an abandoned industrial site is cleaned up and made right for the next use of the site.
In this case, its a community thing, this particular building was in good condition, its a church and if people had to pay to keep it, its hard to say if it would have worked, or some other alternatives could have been implemented to supplement it, this is not an old industrial site, nor has it a famous architect that I know of. I disagree with the demolition of it regardless, because of what it is, a magnificent church, however a developer bought it fair and square to develop and profit from it, once they got the approvals, people fought it for a few years, they won, they can build on the site and those of the parish are shuttered out, thats that. Now they get a new supermarket and there are those that will be happy with that and those that do not, the latter is me. Some things like this always leave something to be desired and sometimes even with a massive effort, it just won't fly, shameful but true.
In the nearby city here, during urban renewal of the 60's, they tore down the train station, of the same architecture of Grand Central in Manhattan, they pilfered all the valuable architectural items and materials and pocket'd the money themselves, corrupt politicians, you used to be able to take a train from here, they saw fit for their own and their associates profit and the heck with the citizens.
We had an old large victorian house, would have taken a ton of money to re-use it, rehabilitate it etc., town condemned it we fought and beat them, but the contractor still had gotten it down, in a sense they did us a favor, cost was on the town for the legal mistakes they made, still shameful, but its a tall order to keep something like that, when you are busy and work hundreds of miles away. Was not a practical building, was a beautiful house, but like so many old barns, no practical use given the size and layout.
Some buildings are worth fighting for, some are not and not everyone agrees on that, LOL !