New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status • Hacker News Board

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#21

Post by crimsonalucard » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #6

The problem with this sort of thing is that it, in theory, adds value to "the commons." (We preserve historically interesting architecture which is, presumably, mostly good.) But we impose costs on owners/sellers who have less flexibility to change things. Which may make continued use of the property non-viable. Penn Station gets a lot of attention in this regard. But, at the time, no one was volunteering to step in…

These types of commons have no utility. How about upgrading the subway or building a high speed rail. Actual contributions to the common good rather then nostalgic addictions to preserving the obsolete.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#22

Post by Causality1 » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#23

Post by ghaff » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

crimsonalucard wrote: post #21

ghaff wrote: post #6

The problem with this sort of thing is that it, in theory, adds value to "the commons." (We preserve historically interesting architecture which is, presumably, mostly good.) But we impose costs on owners/sellers who have less flexibility to change things. Which may make continued use of the property non-viable. Penn Station gets a lot of attention in this regard. But, at the time, no one was volunteering to step in…

These types of commons have no utility. How about upgrading the subway or building a high speed rail. Actual contributions to the common good rather then nostalgic addictions to preserving the obsolete.

You're probably best off moving to a city that hews more to that philosophy. There's definitely a tension. But personally I prefer cities that respect their history to a degree. Obviously individual cases can be controversial--as in this case.

But then I'm mostly not much for very sterile modern cities.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#24

Post by wtallis » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

chrisdhoover wrote: post #13

nxc18 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only mentioned cost is that they can't change the sign without review. If a business is going to go bust because they couldn't change their sign on a dime, the business probably wasn't viable in the first place. This reads like a conservative business owner being annoyed that a government body is existing and doing its job well, which I suppose is a common sentiment. Also, the LPC has nothing to do with 'progress…

Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run. “The restrictions are so great they even include signage,” is how I read the paragraph. I did not read the paragraph as “the restrictions are minor for example a trivial restriction on signage.“

> Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run.

Not a very good example—this kind of regulation is usually focused on preserving the distinctive exterior look of a building, so including the signage in the regulation is not even close to being an overreach, and it doesn't give much indication about whether the regulations do go too far.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#25

Post by beerandt » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:33 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #22

How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.

We gave up that right when building permits became a thing.

They were meant only to prevent city-wide fires. As with everything government, once the process was established, the purpose for using it could be stretched and expanded easily.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#26

Post by big_chungus » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

beerandt wrote: post #25

Causality1 wrote: post #22

How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.

We gave up that right when building permits became a thing. They were meant only to prevent city-wide fires. As with everything government, once the process was established, the purpose for using it could be stretched and expanded easily.

A city-wide fire is a negative externality created by irresponsible management. I'd rather such issues be resolved by courts, but can absolutely see the case.

A historical building is effectively a positive externality provided by the owner. The state cannot ethically force you to provide such a thing, nor can it do so without just compensation (Constitution.) The takings clause is very clear on this; you are preserving a building for public benfit, so the only Constitutional way to do it is by acquisition at fair market rates.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#27

Post by sharkmerry » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

They provided one possible example. Exterior signage.

The owner described it as: "it would “destroy” the popular store." "I call it a bureaucratic noose that’s been put on my throat now."

Strong words, has she actually had an issue yet? What changes are needed to keep them competitive?

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#28

Post by beerandt » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #24

chrisdhoover wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run. “The restrictions are so great they even include signage,” is how I read the paragraph. I did not read the paragraph as “the restrictions are minor for example a trivial restriction on signage.“

> Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run. Not a very good example—this kind of regulation is usually focused on preserving the distinctive exterior look of a building, so including the signage in the regulation is not even close to being an overreach, and it doesn't give much indication about whether the regulations do go too far.

Except they're enforced even after the regulations put the original store out of business. The surge of small town historical districts in the US in the 80s-90s froze whatever signage was there at the time.

Now many of these towns have blocks of buildings with expensive and beautiful signs; none match the name of the actual business inside.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#29

Post by beerandt » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

sverige wrote: post #15

nxc18 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only mentioned cost is that they can't change the sign without review. If a business is going to go bust because they couldn't change their sign on a dime, the business probably wasn't viable in the first place. This reads like a conservative business owner being annoyed that a government body is existing and doing its job well, which I suppose is a common sentiment. Also, the LPC has nothing to do with 'progress…

It's highly unlikely that a wealthy NYC bookstore owner who is married to Ron Wyden is also conservative.

Everyone's a conservative once regulation hits close enough to home.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#30

Post by fluidcruft » Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:52 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #8

> He will argue that the city’s actions are unconstitutional under the fifth amendment, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, and the 14th amendment, which says “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. I have a strong suspicion that's been tried unsuccessfully before.

Is The Strand being compensated? It would be one thing if the the public were purchasing the building or paying for it's use. It doesn't seem like eminent domain or the like where the government compensates for seizure.