When Is A Man's Property Not Really His Property, To Do With As He Wishes?
Welcome to the hell of businesses finding the building they own and occupy has been quickly landmarked.
This happened to The Strand bookstore in New York, imperiling its future, and it happened more recently to a diner in Denver. (Max Ferguson's paintings of The Strand. Another. And I fucking love this place, overflowing with tubs of books.)
Kriston Capps writes in CityLab:
Tom's Diner is a classic establishment where Denver residents have been enjoying breakfast at any hour for decades. The building that houses the funky cafe dates back to 1967, and it bears a distinctive retro-futurist look that adds a dash of neon and nostalgia to one of the city's more eclectic commercial corridors.But when the diner's current owner, Tom Messina, decided he'd flipped his last flapjack, he made plans to sell the building and finance his retirement with the proceeds. The diner's location on East Colfax Avenue, the city's colorful and fast-changing main drag, guarantees his future. Denver has been experiencing a serious population boom, and apartment buildings to house new residents are popping up across town. A Colorado developer offered Messina $4.8 million for the diner, ample reward after slinging omelettes for 20 years. In its place, an eight-story multi-use development would rise.
...Fast-forward to this summer, when Messina, having elected to sell, and the developer applied for what's called a certificate of non-historic status, which would allow them to demolish the building after 120 days. Hundreds of people called Historic Denver after the notice was made public, Levinsky says, hoping to stop the demolition. Five of those Googie admirers applied for landmark status with the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission, which recommended that the building be saved by a unanimous vote.
And let's call bullshit on their bullshit. Christian Britschgi, a man of many consonants, writes at Reason:
When Alberta Company applied for what is known as a Certificate of Non-Historic Status, which would allow the building to be demolished and redeveloped, five community members assisted by the local preservationist nonprofit Historic Denver filed an application to designate Messina's restaurant a historic landmark. If granted, this landmark status would prevent the building's redevelopment into apartments, drastically reducing the value of Messina's property.In their 30-plus page application to the city, these activists argued that Messina's restaurant--first built in 1967 as part of the now-extinct White Spots restaurant chain--is a classic example of mid-century Googie architecture and thus worthy of protection.
The same application notes that seven White Spot restaurants were built in the Denver-area in the 1960s. Three of them are still standing, including another one on the same avenue as Messina's restaurant. Nevertheless, these preservationists argue that Messina's building is a particularly good example of Googie tilted roofs and expansive glass windows.
Here's a solution: All the people who want to tell this man what to do with his property should raise the money to buy it and do with it as they wish.
They could also pay to move the diner, which may or may not be more expensive.
Property rights are foundational to a free society, and excuses about architecture preservation -- much as I happen to have a soft spot for Googie -- don't change that.
Also, more and more, I see in LA that "progressives" for "affordable housing" (if you talk with them at a cocktail party) screech as if you announced you're opening a business to roast babies alive if you float so much as an idea about building anything but a single family home with quaint design.
Their bullshit is part of why there's a massive housing crisis in Los Angeles.
Here's a solution: All the people who want to tell this man what to do with his property should raise the money to buy it and do with it as they wish.
Yes. To the tune of $4.8 million, since that's the standing offer.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 13, 2019 6:27 AM
It seems to me that the landmark designation so substantially reduces the value of the property that it would constitute a taking, for which the owner will have to be compensated by the government. Of course, to actually get that, Messina will have to spend a lot of money that he doesn't have on legal fees. I get the desire to preserve mid-century architecture in general; there's way too many people who are passionate about preserving 19th-century and earlier architecture, but think nothing of destroying 20th-century icons. However, there's a right way and a wrong way to do it. Engaging in legal shenanigans to deprive a property owner of the use of their property is not the right way.
Since the property will have little value with the landmark status, the owner will have little incentive to maintain it. If he can't sell the property, it's just going to sit there un-maintained, and will eventually become an eyesore and a magnet for crime. So it's a lose-lose.
Cousin Dave at August 13, 2019 6:27 AM
“Of course, to actually get that, Messina will have to spend a lot of money that he doesn't have on legal fees”
The process is the punishment A warning to everyone who thinks the solution to all problems is “more government” until they personally get tangled up in the rule making.
Reason actually has some good articles when they deal with property rights and personal freedom.
Too bad illegal immigration seems to be the hill they want to die on.
On a side note, I have eaten there, many years ago, when it was a relatively new White Spot.
Isab at August 13, 2019 6:56 AM
@Iasb - That may be the basic idea. Then the local government condemns and seizes the property for private development, and pays the depressed value. It demolishes the building. A politically connected developer buys it from the local government for the lower cost, and builds the apartment complex. Other than a couple year delay (and the current owner losing his equity), it works out the same.
Wfjag at August 13, 2019 7:55 AM
I read an article about Tokyo where there are no zoning laws. You can build whatever wherever. The city then tries to keep the roads up to date with the traffic. Sounds good to me. The "historic" designation seems to me to be a scam. If it allowed you to get special conservation grants, fine, but if it prevents you from selling--it is a taking pure and simple and either the city or the preservationists should pay for it.
cc at August 13, 2019 9:40 AM
Houston has no zoning laws, IIRC.
Cousin Dave at August 13, 2019 11:50 AM
We do not Cousin Dave. We also don't believe in clear signage. Nor do we cotton to standardized or even marginally well designed road ways. When we finally gave in and built a public train it went from the football stadium to the hospital. I guess there were a lot of concussions and we needed a light rail system to handle the demand or something.
Even with all of that I think we still have those historic building laws.
Ben at August 13, 2019 1:53 PM
In today's episode of People Enslaving People, a Colorado restaurateur has his retirement ruined by a bunch of sniveling "historic preservation" brats . . .
mpetrie98 at August 13, 2019 2:54 PM
The owner should fight back with SJW rhetoric, the new nuclear weapon. If this building's historic status is due to its being a prime example of a restaurant chain called "The White Spot," he should be able to use that to spin it as a monument to racism, leading to widespread protests that it MUST be demolished just like a statue of a Confederate general.
Don't even suggest that the SJW outrage machine is too smart to be manipulated that way. You know it isn't. Never underestimate the stupidity of people in the aggregate.
bw1 at August 13, 2019 5:50 PM
HODL
Crid at August 14, 2019 4:44 AM
"We also don't believe in clear signage. Nor do we cotton to standardized or even marginally well designed road ways."
Lol, I've spent enough time in Houston to know about the signage. (Although it isn't as bad as Toronto, where you can be cruising down the freeway and the lane you're in suddenly ends with no warning.) As for the roads, it reminds me of what a friend, who had lived in both L.A. and Houston, told me. He said, "Houston traffic is worse than Los Angeles. In L.A., if you know your way around, you can use surface streets to get around traffic jams. You can't do that in Houston because none of the streets are connected."
Cousin Dave at August 14, 2019 6:39 AM
Houston at it's heart is a working man's town. We have museums and operas and water parks. But the city as a whole is focused on industrial scale goods. Our highways are very robust. If you want to move a wind turbine from point A to point B you can do it. Or a house. Or a multi-ton pump assembly. The roads won't break. All of that takes enough planning that signs don't matter. So city management doesn't care about them either.
The 'enclave' thing is a crime mitigation response. With no zoning it isn't unusual to have a 5 acre lot with a $10 million home on it and right across the street you have tenement apartments where rooms sell for $300/mo or less. Mixing wealth like that leads to a lot of crime. If you have only one or two ways in the cops can guard those places and keep down the crime.
Ben at August 14, 2019 9:00 AM
The problem Charlotte is having with that is police and fire responders cannot cut through neighborhoods to speed response times, but must go around. Fire trucks are getting trapped in cul-de-sacs.
Conan the Grammarian at August 14, 2019 11:13 AM
Yep Conan. It isn't without downsides.
I don't think we have an issue with fire response. The fix has been to have lots of little fire stations instead of one big one. That means fire protection costs more and you can't have all the really nice big tools a centralized facility would have. Even so I don't think we have an issue.
On the police side, as I said they are already in the neighborhood near a choke point. One officer can respond very quickly. And that is usually enough. At the least they run interference until more can arrive. So just like with fire you have more people and assets scattered about causing expenses to be much higher than they otherwise would need to be.
The bigger issue really is with flooding. Houston floods and there is nothing that is going to stop that. If you have only one or two ways into a neighborhood and they get flooded you are stuck until things drain out.
I'm not really a fan of the enclave idea. But I can understand why people want it. Anything can be next to anything. Someone can convert their house into a strip club. Just scrape the lot and build whatever you want. And people have done that. Or they've put a restaurant in the middle of a neighborhood. We've had liquor stores across the street from elementary schools. No matter how dumb of an idea you can think of we've probably done it. So HOAs are very popular too. They also come with a lot of issues but living without them is worse.
Ben at August 14, 2019 12:08 PM
Charlotte's been pretty good about that. The city purchased or restricted the worst of the flood-prone areas and converted the land to parks and green space (trails, etc.). We still get floods, but at least our frequent heavy downpours don't result in widespread property destruction and emergency management chaos.
Conan the Grammarian at August 14, 2019 12:28 PM
That isn't really an option here. All of Houston floods. The further north you go the less it floods. But all of it floods. Houses are built on a mound so the street floods first. Roads are built to convert into rivers when there is too much rain. We have retention ponds all over the place. Pretty much every soccer or baseball field has a berm around it so it converts into a lake when needed. There is just too much water to actually drain it fast enough.
That said, it is just like California has earth quakes and Oklahoma has tornadoes. Not the greatest thing but not really a big deal. Just have enough food in the house for a few days at all times. If the roads are flooded you just take a few days off from work, get drunk, and wait for things to dry out. Most houses don't actually get flooded. Some houses in the older parts of town (i.e. poorer area) flood all the time. If your house floods every few years MOVE! The pictures you see on TV where rescue workers in boats are rescuing people from roof tops are not typical for most Hustonians. As for why those houses don't get condemned and plowed under, you know how politics works.
Ben at August 14, 2019 1:32 PM
To answer the question: Always.
It hasn't been, for decades.
Radwaste at August 14, 2019 6:32 PM
Leave a comment