5 ms·

There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation

There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody buys a piece of property to develop it. I think it would be far fairer to the purchaser (and the seller, who makes out like a bandit unfairly) to mandate a 90 day stay when a large parcel is sold to allow for filing of historical paperwork. If that doesn't get filed or if it doesn't get granted after filing, then the property transfers at the agreed upon price. If it does get historical status, then it reverts to a much lower price or the sale is canceled. You may be thinking "well that damn richie-rich developer can just get screwed, he wanted to destroy important history in my town for his evil profit." I am thinking about the guy who just wanted to live in a nice house walking distance from downtown, so he bought just outside a historical district to avoid all the paperwork, intending to replace a dilapidated house constructed poorly in 1920, only to find that the historical preservation committee extended the boundaries right after his sale went through. Or, in the alternative, the recent news out of Denver where they attempted and ultimately failed to designate a chain diner as "historic" when the owner wanted to sell the place and retire. Using regulatory power to stop the guy from getting his expected retirement payout when he's done being a restaurant manager is unreasonably heavy handed, in my opinion.

inimino 7y ago
What does any of this have to do with McDonald's?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Or as we say on Twitter, "Sir, this is a Wendy's."
- inimino 7y ago
  In other words, McDonald's is the David going up against local historic authority Goliath in this narrative, or what exactly?
lostlogin 7y ago
> There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody The flip side of this is that developers don’t have a good record. Cheap, badly done developments and a history of buying, then revealing their true plans. “Oh, it turned out to be structurally unstable, so we have to demolish”.
- thatfrenchguy 7y ago
  Most new development in the US look terrible indeed. I’d rather get overprotection than those buildings everywhere in my city.
  - rizwank 7y ago
    And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?
    - rdiddly 7y ago
      What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the cards, and I'm not even sure that's a bad thing.
      - edoceo 7y ago
        Moving in for the McLobster. I'm there next week, can't wait ;)
      - esoterica 7y ago
        > the local property owners get higher prices which is a win Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”. Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.
aibara 7y ago
It really depends on the local laws for declaring historic districts. Much of the time it can be a long process, with lots of community meetings, revisions, etc. (On the national level, you need the property owner's consent to get listed on the on the National Register of Historic Places.) I imagine in some cases the process has already started and the new owner might not know about it, especially if you are talking about short periods of 90 days. And if a community is united against their area being listed, it can fail. But, again, it all depends on the local situation, and if a majority living there want things to go one way, then a lone owner can be screwed out of doing what they wanted.
chrisseaton 7y ago
I think people's priorities are protecting the vulnerable buildings. It's not nice if it's a surprise for someone who buys it, but if the building needs protection then that's the most important thing and there shouldn't be a deadline on doing the right thing.

inimino 7y ago

What does any of this have to do with McDonald's?

pjc50 7y ago
Or as we say on Twitter, "Sir, this is a Wendy's."
inimino 7y ago
In other words, McDonald's is the David going up against local historic authority Goliath in this narrative, or what exactly?

lostlogin 7y ago

> There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody The flip side of this is that developers don’t have a good record. Cheap, badly done developments and a history of buying, then revealing their true plans. “Oh, it turned out to be structurally unstable, so we have to demolish”.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago
Most new development in the US look terrible indeed. I’d rather get overprotection than those buildings everywhere in my city.
- rizwank 7y ago
  And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?
  - rdiddly 7y ago
    What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the cards, and I'm not even sure that's a bad thing.
    - edoceo 7y ago
      Moving in for the McLobster. I'm there next week, can't wait ;)
    - esoterica 7y ago
      > the local property owners get higher prices which is a win Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”. Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.

aibara 7y ago

It really depends on the local laws for declaring historic districts. Much of the time it can be a long process, with lots of community meetings, revisions, etc. (On the national level, you need the property owner's consent to get listed on the on the National Register of Historic Places.) I imagine in some cases the process has already started and the new owner might not know about it, especially if you are talking about short periods of 90 days. And if a community is united against their area being listed, it can fail. But, again, it all depends on the local situation, and if a majority living there want things to go one way, then a lone owner can be screwed out of doing what they wanted.

chrisseaton 7y ago

I think people's priorities are protecting the vulnerable buildings. It's not nice if it's a surprise for someone who buys it, but if the building needs protection then that's the most important thing and there shouldn't be a deadline on doing the right thing.