3 ms·
Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their b
by siruncledrew 7y ago
Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business.
For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.”
Wouldn’t that just incentivize wealthy owners to buy up landmarks to hold them for ransom against the city, which seems contrary to the function of landmarks?
- TylerE 7y agoThe point of landmark status is that they can't do stuff like that. The planning will get turned down.
- nullc 7y agoThe point of the grandparent poster is that turning down plans is a taking which could be remedied by compensation, the point of the parent poster was that this fix creates an extortion vector.
- TylerE 7y agoI don’t get it. The owner tries to do something non-historic, the city/historical society tells them to pound sand. There is no extortion because the property owner has no leverage.
- ISL 7y agoThat is fine, as long as the city compensates them at an agreed-upon price for the lost future utility at the time that the historic designation is applied. Conservation easements work this way, and both preservationists and land owners reach amicable agreements.
- BurningFrog 7y agoThat people bring out building more housing in NYC as their goto example of something awful that must not be allowed to happen is the most depressing thing I saw today.