If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it. Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.
There are arguments to be made on both sides, this isn't a black and white issue. The history of preservation is fascinating. Especially after Penn Station's demolition, NYC went through a big debate on other landmarks like Grand Central: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/preservation-battle-g....
> While few doubted the significance of Grand Central, the terminal’s owners took issue with the law itself—how, they wondered, could it constitute anything other than an unreasonable violation of their rights as property owners? Preservationists like Onassis, working with groups like the Municipal Art Society, continued to insist that saving Grand Central and buildings like it wasn’t a mere real estate matter, but an issue of public good. On June 26, 1978, the United States Supreme Court agreed with them in Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. New York City, not just in regards to Grand Central but in the spirit of the Landmarks law itself...
In retrospect I don't think you could find a New Yorker who regrets that Grand Central was saved after seeing what Penn Station became.
I'd much rather have codes that require a particular aesthetic on a site than try to retain a particular object building in perpetuity.
There exists a National Register of Historic Places (operated by the Parks Service) with about 90,000 entries, and within that scope is the National Historic Landmark registry, with about 2,600. Both may trigger local and state preservation laws, but the latter requires the consent of the owner to be included. About 50% of places on the NHL registry are privately owned.
Private institutions are usually not required to keep up the property to exacting standards, as the laws that govern property rights still apply to NHLs. Many matching grants are issued for NHLs, but at the same time, many private properties designated NHLs do become abandoned and fall into severe disrepair. Most NHLs are afforded tax breaks based on the cost of preserving the property.
But in the Strand's case, it appears that the "landmark" designation that's been assigned is a "New York City Landmark" status, making it a local issue. NYC law allows for the Landmarks Preservation Commission's decision to be overturned if an appeal is filed within 90 days, and hearings were held and motions filed against it, but apparently the NYC LPC went ahead with the status anyway.
So it seems like there needn't be a new requirement for the City to buy the property, or fund it, but the City's preservation agency could perhaps mimic the federal government's initiatives and give owners more leeway. (However, this may lead to more properties becoming abandoned and decaying, as happens currently with NHLs)
Still, the Strand's main objective doesn't seem to be getting reimbursed for costs: it's time. Apparently they're saying they would need to spend a lot of time to go through complex bureaucracy just to get a permit for some repairs, in addition to legal costs. Going through all that could stall business long enough for small-margin operations to go under. Regardless of who pays for what, if the regulation is too onerous, they just don't want the designation.
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.