On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#1

Post by fortran77 » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 3:22 AM UTC

On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark
strandbooks.com

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#2

Post by Bostonian » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 3:38 AM UTC

If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it. Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#3

Post by robotron » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 3:56 AM UTC

Why is this here?

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#4

Post by ropiwqefjnpoa » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

What amazes me is that they have the gall to do this against the wishes of the owners.

In a few years Amazon will buy the place as a "good will" gesture.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#5

Post by crankylinuxuser » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 4:35 AM UTC

Bostonian wrote: post #2

If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it. Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.

Something like this happened to a house here locally. It was a run down 100+ year old junker eyesore house with "historic value". So it was deemed a historic house.

The owners didn't want it either, and wanted the land for their purposes. So one night, bulldozers came in and razed it. Next day, there was a nasty news article about the "Horrible people who razed historic house"... And later on a $135,000 fine.

But the moment the city lays a claim like "historic house" or whatever, that should be only subject to a eminent domain as laid out in the constitution. Doing this reduces value to nil, and in reality, poisons the property and deed. They should eminent domain it and pay fair market value if they really care about its historic worth.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#6

Post by big_chungus » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 4:38 AM UTC

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #5

Bostonian wrote: post #2

If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it. Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.

Something like this happened to a house here locally. It was a run down 100+ year old junker eyesore house with "historic value". So it was deemed a historic house. The owners didn't want it either, and wanted the land for their purposes. So one night, bulldozers came in and razed it. Next day, there was a nasty news article about the "Horrible people who razed historic house"... And later on a $135,000 fine. But the…

Absolutely. The "historic value" of a particular thing is a positive externality; we have eminent domain so the state cannot compel the common man to produce a positive externality without compensation; the public cannot say that it really likes looking at your house so you must keep it that way.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#7

Post by adventured » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

robotron wrote: post #3

Why is this here?

I'll bite. Because it's an interesting cultural story, with an intersection of several topics commonly fascinating to HN readers based on past front page action: books, bookstores, government conflict, public / private sector policy collision, underdog narrative. Independent bookstores are widely regarded as culturally significant.

This story is very, very obviously right up HN's alley. It would be more surprising if it weren't upvoted.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#8

Post by tomrod » Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 4:47 AM UTC

robotron wrote: post #3

Why is this here?

20-something year old technology tinkerer interests often broaden as the tinkerers gain repeated experience with the non-tech portion of the world.

To connect it to technology, statistics & economics could be used to evaluate the counterfactual property valuation should historical status for the home had never been declared.