4 ms·
So the government is supposed to dictate what "culture" is allowed. Why can't the owners decide that for themselves? If they don't want to run a bar what busine
by niij 6y ago
So the government is supposed to dictate what "culture" is allowed. Why can't the owners decide that for themselves? If they don't want to run a bar what business does the government have forcing them to do so?
- toyg 6y agoThey weren’t forced to run a bar, they were forced to keep a historic structure up. It could have been turned into other commercial activities without any question.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 6y ago> they were forced to keep a historic structure up This is untrue. The building was never designated a historic structure. This action by the local government had nothing to do with Heritage England. It was solely a bizarre flex that shocks the conscience (and would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S.).
- toyg 6y agoDid you even read the article you're so vehemently fighting on ideological grounds...? > After being denied planning permission to convert it into 10 flats, and two days before English Heritage was due to recommend the pub be granted Grade-II listed status [...] > "We had a suspicion before the demolition that they would do something, so we asked English Heritage to think about listing it. They took a plaster cast of every tile, they took pictures and documented everything." The building was in the process of being designated as historic, a process whose outcomes are typically unofficially known weeks or months in advances. A date was set for the announcement. Demolishing it two days in advance of that was a complete dick move, if you excuse the technical term. > would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S. Good thing we are not in the US then!
- torstenvl 6y agoI read every word. Did you? You keep claiming it was already a historic structure, and then linking to information saying it wasn't yet.
- toyg 6y agoBut it was clearly in the process of becoming so. Hence, they were not free to demolish it. Which is why they were forced to rebuild it. QED.
- torstenvl 6y agoThere is nothing in the article, nor in anything you've provided, that supports the idea that the English Heritage restrictions go into effect once a site has been nominated. Please withdraw that claim, or link to the relevant source. Even assuming that's correct, however, it still would not make it acceptable to insinuate that something was already listed as a historic structure when it, in fact, had not been so listed.
- toyg 6y agoAh yes, so the Council made an order, the legitimacy of which was confirmed by a specific review, just because... they hate private property? They are drunk on power? :eyeroll: Councils in England ultimately have this kind of power to maintain the character of an area, and they use it. There is nothing scandalous or new about it.
- torstenvl 6y agoSarcasm and changing the subject may convince casual readers, but it's actually not particularly effective argument, and I won't be distracted by it. What is your citation for the claim that "they were not free to demolish it" once it was "in the process of becoming" listed?
- 6y ago
- thatcat 6y agoYea, as a representative for the community of people who live and pay taxes there, not the parasitic real estate devs that simply exploit the value of that locations culture.