5 ms·

Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops. Think of it this way, without New Y

Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops. Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

rayiner 7y ago
You can have a say over someone’s property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone’s property (where the use doesn’t harm anyone else’s property) without compensation is stealing.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  How constitutional are air rights such as in NY or transfer of development rights such as proposed for Calcutta in this article https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-architecture-heritage-destruction-city-campaign-amit-chaudhuri https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-arch...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The Supreme Court thinks New York’s landmark designation laws are constitutional, and the air rights system is less invasive than that: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104. I think Penn Central was a fantastically wrong decision (Rehnquist and Stevens dissented in that case). Obviously, the fact that a regulation diminishes the value of property is not sufficient to amount to a taking. The government can ban diesel cars and if that renders existing diesel cars worthless, so be it. Height limits (and the concept of air rights trading) can be justified on a similar principle, but they’re closer to the borderline. But historical landmark laws are not laws of general effect that happen to impact property values. They are targeted takings of private property without compensation.
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      The landmark laws have had essentially reverse blockbusting/gentrifying effects in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans like Tremé. It’s not uncommon for speculators to call in violations like broken stoops or split porch railings and then the same speculator leaves flyers in the mailbox of the “violator” offering to buy for a knockdown price...
jzwinck 7y ago
Landmarking this building removes the choice from future New Yorkers to redevelop this bookstore-building into housing, offices, or even a park. If you want to have a say in how the community develops, maybe don't limit your options for developing your community? If future New Yorkers decide they don't want this building turned into a modern skyscraper, they can reject the required applications for building permits at that time. Or is it more about "old" New Yorkers trying to make sure new New Yorkers don't have a say?
- CPLX 7y ago
  This is patent nonsense. The same political process that created the landmark designation can remove or alter it.
kapuasuite 7y ago
New Yorkers already do have their say in how the community develops - why do you think something like 40% of the buildings in Manhattan couldn’t be built today under existing zoning? New Yorkers have made it illegal to build the very same buildings and neighborhoods they claim to love - while also demanding that existing neighborhoods be preserved because they’re so “unique.” It’s almost like there’s some other agenda at play...

rayiner 7y ago

You can have a say over someone’s property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone’s property (where the use doesn’t harm anyone else’s property) without compensation is stealing.

selimthegrim 7y ago
How constitutional are air rights such as in NY or transfer of development rights such as proposed for Calcutta in this article https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-architecture-heritage-destruction-city-campaign-amit-chaudhuri https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-arch...
- rayiner 7y ago
  The Supreme Court thinks New York’s landmark designation laws are constitutional, and the air rights system is less invasive than that: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104. I think Penn Central was a fantastically wrong decision (Rehnquist and Stevens dissented in that case). Obviously, the fact that a regulation diminishes the value of property is not sufficient to amount to a taking. The government can ban diesel cars and if that renders existing diesel cars worthless, so be it. Height limits (and the concept of air rights trading) can be justified on a similar principle, but they’re closer to the borderline. But historical landmark laws are not laws of general effect that happen to impact property values. They are targeted takings of private property without compensation.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    The landmark laws have had essentially reverse blockbusting/gentrifying effects in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans like Tremé. It’s not uncommon for speculators to call in violations like broken stoops or split porch railings and then the same speculator leaves flyers in the mailbox of the “violator” offering to buy for a knockdown price...

jzwinck 7y ago

Landmarking this building removes the choice from future New Yorkers to redevelop this bookstore-building into housing, offices, or even a park. If you want to have a say in how the community develops, maybe don't limit your options for developing your community? If future New Yorkers decide they don't want this building turned into a modern skyscraper, they can reject the required applications for building permits at that time. Or is it more about "old" New Yorkers trying to make sure new New Yorkers don't have a say?

CPLX 7y ago
This is patent nonsense. The same political process that created the landmark designation can remove or alter it.

kapuasuite 7y ago

New Yorkers already do have their say in how the community develops - why do you think something like 40% of the buildings in Manhattan couldn’t be built today under existing zoning? New Yorkers have made it illegal to build the very same buildings and neighborhoods they claim to love - while also demanding that existing neighborhoods be preserved because they’re so “unique.” It’s almost like there’s some other agenda at play...