Comment by wcunning | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wcunning | Hacker News Reader

There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody buys a piece of property to develop it. I think it would be far fairer to the purchaser (and the seller, who makes out like a bandit unfairly) to mandate a 90 day stay when a large parcel is sold to allow for filing of historical paperwork. If that doesn't get filed or if it doesn't get granted after filing, then the property transfers at the agreed upon price. If it does get historical status, then it reverts to a much lower price or the sale is canceled.

You may be thinking "well that damn richie-rich developer can just get screwed, he wanted to destroy important history in my town for his evil profit." I am thinking about the guy who just wanted to live in a nice house walking distance from downtown, so he bought just outside a historical district to avoid all the paperwork, intending to replace a dilapidated house constructed poorly in 1920, only to find that the historical preservation committee extended the boundaries right after his sale went through. Or, in the alternative, the recent news out of Denver where they attempted and ultimately failed to designate a chain diner as "historic" when the owner wanted to sell the place and retire. Using regulatory power to stop the guy from getting his expected retirement payout when he's done being a restaurant manager is unreasonably heavy handed, in my opinion.

> There are so many examples of this sort of thing. I am frustrated by the ease with which buildings are declared historical sites and how often that designation happens after somebody

The flip side of this is that developers don’t have a good record. Cheap, badly done developments and a history of buying, then revealing their true plans. “Oh, it turned out to be structurally unstable, so we have to demolish”.

Most new development in the US look terrible indeed. I’d rather get overprotection than those buildings everywhere in my city.

And what about the subsequent pressure on new ever growing need for housing?

What about it? If there's ever a mass exodus to Freeport ME, the people trying to service that need will follow the rules while serving the need. Or they'll get out of that market and someone else will do it. In the "worst" case the local property owners get higher prices which is a win, and the aesthetic rules maintain the (presumed) attractiveness of the town, which is a win. Shrug emoji? The locals hold all the cards, and I'm not even sure that's a bad thing.

Moving in for the McLobster. I'm there next week, can't wait ;)

> the local property owners get higher prices which is a win

Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”.

Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.

In other words it's a win for the winners, just like capitalism as usual. I can't fix capitalism. The people making these laws are the same ones benefiting, was my point. They win because they hold all the cards. We can talk all day about whether they should win. On the "they shouldn't" side, you can make a "free enterprise" argument like this article seems to, or an "equity" argument like you seem to be doing. They're both sound arguments, and meanwhile contrariwise I also buy the argument that being in a place should afford you some amount of self-determination. There's no clear right answer and no moral high ground, just different groups of people fighting over who gets the resources... again sort of "as usual."

What on earth does gaming the housing market through government regulations have to do with “free enterprise”? Using regulations to distort markets is the very opposite of free enterprise.

You answered your own question; they're related by opposition. As I said.

Your answer suggested that you consider restrictive land zoning regulations to be consistent with free enterprise and efficient pricing, which of course it is not.

I guess you like high rents then?

There is a balancing act between living in a museum and retaining no historical memory.

Most cities with any history to speak of preserve a few areas built out with edifices that are especially beautiful, and / or historical significance.

I would rather my city demolish and rebuild a slums district, even if that district used to be a city's landmark. Unless such a place can sustain itself as a museum and a tourist attraction, I think the life conditions of the current population are more important than the desire to have a living memory of everything.

It really depends on the local laws for declaring historic districts. Much of the time it can be a long process, with lots of community meetings, revisions, etc. (On the national level, you need the property owner's consent to get listed on the on the National Register of Historic Places.) I imagine in some cases the process has already started and the new owner might not know about it, especially if you are talking about short periods of 90 days. And if a community is united against their area being listed, it can fail. But, again, it all depends on the local situation, and if a majority living there want things to go one way, then a lone owner can be screwed out of doing what they wanted.

I think people's priorities are protecting the vulnerable buildings. It's not nice if it's a surprise for someone who buys it, but if the building needs protection then that's the most important thing and there shouldn't be a deadline on doing the right thing.

What does any of this have to do with McDonald's?

Or as we say on Twitter, "Sir, this is a Wendy's."

In other words, McDonald's is the David going up against local historic authority Goliath in this narrative, or what exactly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com